Bradley & Co. v. Cochran

108 S.E. 624, 27 Ga. App. 463, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 215
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 7, 1921
Docket12476
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 624 (Bradley & Co. v. Cochran) 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
Bradley & Co. v. Cochran, 108 S.E. 624, 27 Ga. App. 463, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 215 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Hill, J.

An unrecorded contract retaining title in the vendor of personal property until full payment of the purchase-money is not good as against “ the interests of third parties acting in good faith and without notice, who may have acquired a transfer or lien binding the same property.” Civil Code (1910), § 3320. It follows that in a contest between the holder of an unrecorded retention-of-title note and a creditor of its maker under a iien created by the levy of an attachment, judgment in favor of the latter was properly rendered; and the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction a petition for a writ of certiorari. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3318 et seq.; Southern Iron & Equipment Co. v. Voyles, 138 Ga. 258 (4) (75 S. E. 248, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 375, Ann. Cas. 1916 D, 369); Worth v. Goebel, 138 Ga. 739 (5) (76 S. E. 46).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Related

Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
137 S.E.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 S.E. 624, 27 Ga. App. 463, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-co-v-cochran-gactapp-1921.