Reid v. Wilkerson, 222 Ga. 282(2), 149 S.E.2d 700 (1966) (“ ‘Neither laches nor the statute of limitations will run against one in peaceable possession of property under a claim of ownership for delay in resorting to a court of equity to establish his rights.’ [Cit.]”); W.L. Schautz Co. v. Duncan Hosiery Mills, Inc., 218 Ga. 729(1), 130 S.E.2d 496 (1963); Lominick v. Lominick, 213 Ga. 53, 55, 96 S.E.2d 587 (1957); Toombs v. Hilliard, 209 Ga. 755(5)(a), 75 S.E.2d 801 (1953). Accordingly, appellant's assertion that the instant action for injunctive relief fails because of laches or the running of the statute of limitations period is without merit.
Reid v. Wilkerson, 222 Ga. 282(2), 149 S.E.2d 700 (1966) (“ ‘Neither laches nor the statute of limitations will run against one in peaceable possession of property under a claim of ownership for delay in resorting to a court of equity to establish his rights.’ [Cit.]”); W.L. Schautz Co. v. Duncan Hosiery Mills, Inc., 218 Ga. 729(1), 130 S.E.2d 496 (1963) ; Lominick v. Lominick, 213 Ga. 53, 55, 96 S.E.2d 587 (1957) ; Toombs v. Hilliard, 209 Ga. 755(5)(a), 75 S.E.2d 801 (1953). Accordingly, appellant's assertion that the instant action for injunctive relief fails because of laches or the running of the statute of limitations period is without merit.
This evidence is sufficient to withstand summary judgment on the issue of delivery. See Fuller v. Fuller, 213 Ga. 103 ( 97 S.E.2d 306) (1957); W. L. Schautz Co. v. Duncan Hosiery Mills, 218 Ga. 729 ( 130 S.E.2d 496) (1963). Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
A judgment creditor does not stand in the position of a bona fide purchaser for value. Burke v. Anderson, 40 Ga. 535 (1869). Accord, e.g., Parker v. Boyd, 208 Ga. 829 (1a) ( 69 S.E.2d 760) (1952); W. L. Schautz Co., Inc. v. Duncan Hosiery Mills, Inc., 218 Ga. 729 (5) ( 130 S.E.2d 496) (1963). The rights of a judgment creditor are inferior to the prior equitable rights of a mortgagee.
Recordation is prima facie evidence of delivery and, where, as here, the evidence fails to show that, in fact, there was no delivery of the earlier recorded deed, it is entitled to priority. See Daniel v. Stinson, 179 Ga. 701 ( 177 S.E. 590); and W. L. Schautz Co. v. Duncan Hosiery Mills, 218 Ga. 729 (2) ( 130 S.E.2d 496). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.