Barbour v. Day Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barbour v. Day Co.

139 S.E. 909, 37 Ga. App. 267, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 619

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1927

Docket17875

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 909 (Barbour v. Day Co.) 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

Barbour v. Day Co., 139 S.E. 909, 37 Ga. App. 267, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. Where, under a contract of conditional sale of personalty, the property is delivered to the purchaser, and the seller merely retains the title as security for the purchase-money, the purchaser’s default in the payment of the purchase-money will not, without more, constitute a conversion of the property. Baston v. Rabun, 115 Ga. 378 (41 S. E. 568); Young v. Durham, 15 Ga. App. 678 (5) (84 S. E. 165); Securities Trust Co. v. Marshall, 30 Ga. App. 379 (3, 5) (118 S. E. 478).

2. Where, after the purchaser in such a contract has defaulted in the payment of the purchase-money, the seller brings trover to recover the - property, and where there is no other evidence of conversion except the purchaser’s refusal, on demand, to surrender the property, the action is unaffected by the statute of limitations where it is brought within, four years from the date of such demand and refusal; and this is true although such default in payment may have occurred more than four years before the suit was filed. Hicks v. Moyer, 10 Ga. App. 488 (73 S. E. 754).

3. The judgment as rendered by the municipal court in favor of the plaintiff was not without evidence to support it. The superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. Where, under a contract of conditional sale of personalty, the property is delivered to the purchaser, and the seller merely retains the title as security for the purchase-money, the purchaser’s default in the payment of the purchase-money will not, without more, constitute a conversion of the property. Baston v. Rabun, 115 Ga. 378 (41 S. E. 568); Young v. Durham, 15 Ga. App. 678 (5) (84 S. E. 165); Securities Trust Co. v. Marshall, 30 Ga. App. 379 (3, 5) (118 S. E. 478).

2. Where, after the purchaser in such a contract has defaulted in the payment of the purchase-money, the seller brings trover to recover the - property, and where there is no other evidence of conversion except the purchaser’s refusal, on demand, to surrender the property, the action is unaffected by the statute of limitations where it is brought within, four years from the date of such demand and refusal; and this is true although such default in payment may have occurred more than four years before the suit was filed. Hicks v. Moyer, 10 Ga. App. 488 (73 S. E. 754).

3. The judgment as rendered by the municipal court in favor of the plaintiff was not without evidence to support it. The superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 909, 37 Ga. App. 267, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbour-v-day-co-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack