Brice & Co. v. Whitehurst & Hilliard

68 S.E. 1075, 8 Ga. App. 291, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 138
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 28, 1910·No. 2381·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Where a judge passing on a motion for a new trial did not original^ try the ease, his discretion is not as broad' as it would be otherwise; but he still has discretion to grant a new trial, where the evidence preponderates against the verdict.

2. Where a vendor sells personal property, reserving title to secure the purchase-price, and the vendee, with the vendor’s consent, sells the property to a third person, who assumes the payment of the balance of the purchase-price to the original vendor, the. latter can not recover in trover the property from the third person without offering to put him in statu . quo.

3. On the material issue as to whether or not the plaintiffs knew of and consented to the sale of the property by the original purchaser to the defendants, the evidence preponderates against the verdict, and therefore the judge did not err in granting a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Brice & Co. v. Whitehurst & Hilliard, 68 S.E. 1075, 8 Ga. App. 291, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 138 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

68 S.E. 1075 (Brice & Co. v. Whitehurst & Hilliard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Brown
134 S.E.2d 440 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Schofield v. Langley
61 S.E.2d 838 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Standard Motors Finance Co. v. O'Neal
134 S.E. 843 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Bryan
82 S.E. 913 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Hilliard & Hilliard v. Brice & Co.
80 S.E. 670 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)