Daniel v. Thornton & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Daniel v. Thornton & Co.

111 S.E. 575, 28 Ga. App. 428, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 568

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 1, 1922

Docket12881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 575 (Daniel v. Thornton & 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

Daniel v. Thornton & Co., 111 S.E. 575, 28 Ga. App. 428, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 568 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. A buyer of personal property, signing an instrument reserving title in the seller, cannot complain that the seller, in reselling the property, failed to comply with the exact terms of the bill of sale in. reference to giving the buyer notice of the time and place of the resale, when the resale was made in pursuance of the buyer’s request.

2. Thornton & Company sold a mule to Daniel, and he signed a purchase-money note reserving title in them. The instrument provided tha't in case of non-payment of the debt at maturity, Thornton & Company might take possession of the property and sell it at public outcry for cash, after ten days’ written notice to Daniel of the time and place of sale. Daniel was not able to pay the debt when due and returned the mule to Thornton & Company to sell, but said that he did not want the sheriff to sell it and did not want any advertisement or publicity about it. The sale was advertised, but the full ten days’ notice of the time and place of sale, as provided for in the bill of sale, was not given Daniel. The undisputed evidence shows, however, that the mule was sold in pursuance of [Daniel’s] request,” and that Thornton & Company bought the mule and subsequently resold it, crediting the note with the amount paid by them on resale. They sued Daniel for the balance due on the note. Held: The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs. See Pressley v. MeLanahan, 14 Ga. App. 366 (80 S. E. 902. 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

Hill, J.

1. A buyer of personal property, signing an instrument reserving title in the seller, cannot complain that the seller, in reselling the property, failed to comply with the exact terms of the bill of sale in. reference to giving the buyer notice of the time and place of the resale, when the resale was made in pursuance of the buyer’s request.

2. Thornton & Company sold a mule to Daniel, and he signed a purchase-money note reserving title in them. The instrument provided tha't in case of non-payment of the debt at maturity, Thornton & Company might take possession of the property and sell it at public outcry for cash, after ten days’ written notice to Daniel of the time and place of sale. Daniel was not able to pay the debt when due and returned the mule to Thornton & Company to sell, but said that he did not want the sheriff to sell it and did not want any advertisement or publicity about it. The sale was advertised, but the full ten days’ notice of the time and place of sale, as provided for in the bill of sale, was not given Daniel. The undisputed evidence shows, however, that the mule was sold in pursuance of [Daniel’s] request,” and that Thornton & Company bought the mule and subsequently resold it, crediting the note with the amount paid by them on resale. They sued Daniel for the balance due on the note. Held: The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs. See Pressley v. MeLanahan, 14 Ga. App. 366 (80 S. E. 902. Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 575, 28 Ga. App. 428, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-thornton-co-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack