Adder Machine Co. v. Hawes

Supreme Court of Georgia

Adder Machine Co. v. Hawes

111 S.E. 188, 152 Ga. 826, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 289

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 21, 1922

DocketNo. 2620

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 188 (Adder Machine Co. v. Hawes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adder Machine Co. v. Hawes, 111 S.E. 188, 152 Ga. 826, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 289 (Ga. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

As appears from the first question propounded, the action of trover and bail, by amendment of the petition by the plaintiff, was converted into a plain suit of trover for the recovery of the property itself, wherein no recovery was sought for hire, or for the value of the property. As stated in the question, the Civil Code (1910), § 4015, provides: “No suit to recover a debt due by the decedent shall be commenced against the administrator until the expiration of twelve months from his qualification,” etc. A trover suit for the recovery alone of the property therein mentioned is not a “suit to recover a debt due by the decedent/'’ and it is only where the suit is to recover a debt that the exemption applies. See Lanfair v. Thompson, 112 Ga. 487 (2) (37 S. E. 717); Redford v. Lloyd, 147 Ga. 145 (93 S. E. 296). We therefore answer the first question in the negative.

No answer is required to the second question, as it is predicated upon the hypothesis that the first question is answered in the affirmative.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fish, C. J.

As appears from the first question propounded, the action of trover and bail, by amendment of the petition by the plaintiff, was converted into a plain suit of trover for the recovery of the property itself, wherein no recovery was sought for hire, or for the value of the property. As stated in the question, the Civil Code (1910), § 4015, provides: “No suit to recover a debt due by the decedent shall be commenced against the administrator until the expiration of twelve months from his qualification,” etc. A trover suit for the recovery alone of the property therein mentioned is not a “suit to recover a debt due by the decedent/'’ and it is only where the suit is to recover a debt that the exemption applies. See Lanfair v. Thompson, 112 Ga. 487 (2) (37 S. E. 717); Redford v. Lloyd, 147 Ga. 145 (93 S. E. 296). We therefore answer the first question in the negative.

No answer is required to the second question, as it is predicated upon the hypothesis that the first question is answered in the affirmative.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 188, 152 Ga. 826, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adder-machine-co-v-hawes-ga-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack