Atkinson v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.

87 S.E. 891, 144 Ga. 694, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 84
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 18, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 891 (Atkinson v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.) 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
Atkinson v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 87 S.E. 891, 144 Ga. 694, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 84 (Ga. 1916).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. The tax provided for in the Civil Code, § 928, to be collected from every keeper, owner, or lessee of pool or billiard tables kept for public use, is an occupation tax, and not a tax on property. Civil Code, § 916.

2. Where a vendor of personal property sells certain goods on credit, and delivers possession thereof to the vendee, and a written contract is duly executed by the terms of which title is reserved in the vendor until the purchase-money is paid, and the contract is duly recorded in the county of the purchaser’s residence, the legal title will not vest in the purchaser until the purchase-money has been paid. Civil Code, §§ 3318, 3319, 3259.

3. Where a contract of the character just mentioned is so executed and recorded, the record thereof is notice to third persons, notwithstanding the property may subsequently be removed into another county by the purchaser with the knowledge and consent of the vendor.

4. Where the property so held by the vendee in a county other than that in which the contract was recorded was levied on by the sheriff for the collection of an occupation tax as provided for in the. Civil Code, § 928, and was sold by the sheriff, a purchaser at the sheriff’s sale took subject to the right of the vendor. See, in this connection, remarks of Hill, J., in Reynolds Banking Co. v. Peebles, 142 Ga. 615, 616 (83 S. E. 229).

5. Where, after, a sale by the sheriff, the vendor instituted an action of trover against the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, for the property covered by the conditional bill'of sale, and elected to take a money verdict, it was not erroneous, under the agreed statement of facts, for the court to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount due on the purchase-price. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Richmond County v. Richmond County Business Ass'n
170 S.E.2d 246 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1969)
Eastern Motor Co. v. Commercial Credit Co.
13 S.E.2d 195 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Southern Discount Co. v. Haverty Furniture Co.
9 S.E.2d 116 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
State Revenue Commission v. Rich
175 S.E. 394 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Fain v. Commercial Credit Co.
169 S.E. 781 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Skinner v. Stewart Plumbing Co.
155 S.E. 97 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
McCray v. Bledsoe
106 S.E. 920 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Powers v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.
91 S.E. 1062 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 S.E. 891, 144 Ga. 694, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-brunswick-balke-collender-co-ga-1916.