Bush v. Ogletree

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bush v. Ogletree

142 S.E. 463, 38 Ga. App. 55, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 30

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1928

Docket18411

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 142 S.E. 463 (Bush v. Ogletree) 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

Bush v. Ogletree, 142 S.E. 463, 38 Ga. App. 55, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. Where goods are stolen and deposited by the thief in a warehouse, their delivery by the warehouseman to the depositor or his transferee, after notice of the theft and of the true ownership of the property, renders the warehouseman liable to the owner as for a conversion. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 58; 27 R. C. L. 983, 1001.

2. Where an actual conversion of property is shown, no demand is necessary as a condition precedent to its recovery by the owner. Miller v. Wilson, 98 Ga. 567, 569 (25 S. E. 578, 58 Am. St. R. 319); Sappington v. Rimes, 21 Ga. App. 810 (95 S. E. 316); Merchants & Miners Trans. Co. v. Moore, 124 Ga. 482 (52 S. E. 802); 27 R. C. L. 1000.

3, In the present trover action the evidence was sufficient to identify the property and to show the plaintiff’s title thereto, as well as the value of it. The evidence would furtheT have authorized the inference that after the property had been stolen by a third person and deposited in the defendants’ warehouse, and after notice to the defendants of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants delivered the property to a transferee of the depositor who had stolen it. In these circumstances, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff would have been warranted, and the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

Judgment reversed.

Jenlcins, 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 goods are stolen and deposited by the thief in a warehouse, their delivery by the warehouseman to the depositor or his transferee, after notice of the theft and of the true ownership of the property, renders the warehouseman liable to the owner as for a conversion. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 58; 27 R. C. L. 983, 1001.

2. Where an actual conversion of property is shown, no demand is necessary as a condition precedent to its recovery by the owner. Miller v. Wilson, 98 Ga. 567, 569 (25 S. E. 578, 58 Am. St. R. 319); Sappington v. Rimes, 21 Ga. App. 810 (95 S. E. 316); Merchants & Miners Trans. Co. v. Moore, 124 Ga. 482 (52 S. E. 802); 27 R. C. L. 1000.

3, In the present trover action the evidence was sufficient to identify the property and to show the plaintiff’s title thereto, as well as the value of it. The evidence would furtheT have authorized the inference that after the property had been stolen by a third person and deposited in the defendants’ warehouse, and after notice to the defendants of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants delivered the property to a transferee of the depositor who had stolen it. In these circumstances, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff would have been warranted, and the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

Judgment reversed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 463, 38 Ga. App. 55, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-ogletree-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack