Air Service Co. v. Cosmo Investments, Inc.

155 S.E.2d 413, 115 Ga. App. 596, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1179
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 18, 1967
Docket42676
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 155 S.E.2d 413 (Air Service Co. v. Cosmo Investments, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Air Service Co. v. Cosmo Investments, Inc., 155 S.E.2d 413, 115 Ga. App. 596, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1179 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

Debn, Judge.

Both parties agree that the only issue before us is whether Code § 67-2001 gives a lessor of machinery consisting of an air compressor and drill a lien on real estate for the rental value of the machinery leased to a contractor who uses it in improving the real estate of the owner against whom the lien is sought. The statute covers, among others, “all machinists and manufacturers of machinery, including corporations engaged in such business, who may furnish or put up in any county any steam mill or other machinery, or who may repair the same.” In Loudon v. Coleman, 59 Ga. 653, the court adopted the dictionary definition of a machinist as “a constructor of machines and engines, or one well versed in the principles of machines,” and then held that while a corporation could not answer to the latter description it could, in a general sense, to the former. Giving the statute a strict construction as we must (Green v. Farrar Lumber Co., 119 Ga. 30 (46 SE 62)), we are inclined to conclude both that a mere lessor of machinery to a contractor does not come within the class in favor of whom the lien is granted, nor does the machinery itself, not being something in the order of a steam mill or other mechanical device intended to be attached to and used on the realty, meet the criterion under the rule of ejusdem generis. It is generally held under applicable lien laws that machinery not, (a) totally depreciated by use on the property or, (b) incorporated into the improvement, or (c) in connection with which labor was also supplied could not be the basis of a valid lien. See 3 ALR 3d, Anno. p. 573 et seq. and cases there cited.

The trial court correctly sustained the general demurrer of the defendant Cosmo Investments, Inc.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

R.A. Greig Equipment Co. v. Mark Erie Hospitality
2023 Pa. Super. 206 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023)
Great Plains Equipment, Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp.
979 P.2d 627 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1999)
Southeastern Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Inco, Inc.
424 S.E.2d 433 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Logan Equipment Corp. v. Profile Construction Co.
585 A.2d 73 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1991)
Sims' Crane Service, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance
514 F. Supp. 1033 (S.D. Georgia, 1981)
Pacific Southern Mortgage Trust v. Melton
260 S.E.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Mableton Erectors, Inc. v. Dunn Properties of Georgia, Inc.
218 S.E.2d 175 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Superior Rigging & Erecting Co.
170 S.E.2d 721 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
D. H. Overmyer Warehouse Co. v. W. C. Caye & Co.
157 S.E.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 S.E.2d 413, 115 Ga. App. 596, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/air-service-co-v-cosmo-investments-inc-gactapp-1967.