E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Oliver

Court of Appeals of Georgia

E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Oliver

74 S.E. 713, 11 Ga. App. 65, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 255

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1912

Docket3832

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 713 (E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Oliver) 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

E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Oliver, 74 S.E. 713, 11 Ga. App. 65, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. To be valid as against third persons, an instrument purporting to be a bill of sale with reservation of title must be executed in the presence of and attested by and approved before one of the officials .named in section 3257 of the Civil Code (1910), and must be recorded within thirty days from its date. In this case the instrument upon which the suit was based, not having been executed or recorded as required by the statute, was properly excluded from evidence, the defendant being a third party, and there being in the evidence nothing to impeach the bona fides of her title or possession.

2. The judgment of nonsuit was properly awarded, since the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie ease by showing ownership and right to possession of the property for the recovery of which he instituted his action in trover.

Judgment affirmed.■

Pottle, J., disqualified.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. To be valid as against third persons, an instrument purporting to be a bill of sale with reservation of title must be executed in the presence of and attested by and approved before one of the officials .named in section 3257 of the Civil Code (1910), and must be recorded within thirty days from its date. In this case the instrument upon which the suit was based, not having been executed or recorded as required by the statute, was properly excluded from evidence, the defendant being a third party, and there being in the evidence nothing to impeach the bona fides of her title or possession.

2. The judgment of nonsuit was properly awarded, since the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie ease by showing ownership and right to possession of the property for the recovery of which he instituted his action in trover.

Judgment affirmed.■

Pottle, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 713, 11 Ga. App. 65, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-e-forbes-piano-co-v-oliver-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack