Baston v. Rabun

115 Ga. 378
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Fish, J.

1. An action of trover is not maintainable against a bailee of whom

no demand for the property was made before suit, unless it affirmatively appears that there was an actual conversion before the suit was brought. Loveless v. Fowler, 79 Ga. 134.

2. One who executes a bill of sale to specified crops for the purpose of securing a debt, and who, by the terms of the contract expressed in the bill of sale, undertakes, “ as agent for [the creditor] to protect, cultivate, and place in [379]*379marketable condition said crops and to hold said crops subject to his order,” is, in legal contemplation, a bailee holding for the creditor’s benefit.

Trover. Before Judge Holden. Glascock superior court. April 8, 1901. K. J. Hawkins, for plaintiff. B. F. Walker, for defendant.

3. There was in this case no proof of either a demand or of actual conversion before the trover suit was brought. The judgment of nonsuit was, therefore, right.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., absent.

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

Baston v. Rabun, 115 Ga. 378 (Ga. 1902).

115 Ga. 378 (Baston v. Rabun) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buice v. Campbell
108 S.E.2d 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Associates Discount Corp. v. Parlier
107 S.E.2d 238 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Wood v. Sanders
73 S.E.2d 55 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Smith v. C. I. T. Corp.
197 S.E. 322 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Carter v. Spiegel, May Stern Co.
166 S.E. 34 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Jones v. Williams
151 S.E. 695 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Barbour v. Day Co.
139 S.E. 909 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Cox v. Fairbanks Co.
116 S.E. 43 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Shore v. Brown
91 S.E. 909 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Vaughn v. Wright
78 S.E. 123 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)