-
Lumpkin, Justice. 1. In order to authorize the claimant to demand the right to open and conclude, she should have admitted facts amounting to aprima facie case for the plaintiff m fi.fa. This she did not offer to do. She could not ad*246 mit that defendant in fi. fa. was in possession of the property, because, in fact, she herself was in possession of a portion of it; and, therefore, even had she attempted to make this admission, simply to obtain the right to open and conclude, the court should not have allowed it for this purpose. See Royce & Co. et al. v. Gazan, 76 Ga. 79. In view of the facts stated, we can see no error in the court’s refusal to allow the demand made by the claimant.2. The remaining points made by the motion for a new trial are disposed of in the second head-note.Judgment affirmed.
Document Info
Citation Numbers: 87 Ga. 244
Judges: Lumpkin
Filed Date: 5/8/1891
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023