Everroad v. Dickson Planing Mill Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Everroad v. Dickson Planing Mill Co.

106 S.E. 193, 26 Ga. App. 329, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 134

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 24, 1921

Docket11480

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 193 (Everroad v. Dickson Planing Mill 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

Everroad v. Dickson Planing Mill Co., 106 S.E. 193, 26 Ga. App. 329, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A plaintiff in trover must recover on his own title and not on a lack of title in the defendant. Where it appears that the title was originally in the plaintiff and would have continued in him but for a sale by him to one from whom the defendant claims title, the plaintiff may, in establishing his own title, show an adjudication voiding the sale and re-establishing his title, had in a proceeding between him as an intervening claimant and his vendee in a bankruptcy proceeding, which had been instituted against the vendee, which intervention was filed and adjudication had after the defendant had made his alleged purchase under which he claims title from the plaintiff’s vendee; and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant was a party to such intervention proceedings when the evidence fails to establish any facts which will warrant the inference that the defendant acquired any title from the plaintiff’s vendee.

2. Although the property was delivered by the plaintiff’s vendee to the defendant under a contract of sale between them, by the terms of which the defendant was, as a condition to the sale, to cause promissory notes to be executed to the plaintiff’s vendee for the payment of the purchase-money, no title passed into the defendant, because of his failure to execute the notes. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Irish American Dime-Savings Bank, 105 Ga. 57 (31 S. E. 48).

3. Applying the above principle of law to the undisputed facts as shown by the evidence, a verdict for the plaintiff was properly directed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sill, J., concur. ■ Burress & Dillard, for plaintiff in error. Smith, Hammond & Smith, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

1. A plaintiff in trover must recover on his own title and not on a lack of title in the defendant. Where it appears that the title was originally in the plaintiff and would have continued in him but for a sale by him to one from whom the defendant claims title, the plaintiff may, in establishing his own title, show an adjudication voiding the sale and re-establishing his title, had in a proceeding between him as an intervening claimant and his vendee in a bankruptcy proceeding, which had been instituted against the vendee, which intervention was filed and adjudication had after the defendant had made his alleged purchase under which he claims title from the plaintiff’s vendee; and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant was a party to such intervention proceedings when the evidence fails to establish any facts which will warrant the inference that the defendant acquired any title from the plaintiff’s vendee.

2. Although the property was delivered by the plaintiff’s vendee to the defendant under a contract of sale between them, by the terms of which the defendant was, as a condition to the sale, to cause promissory notes to be executed to the plaintiff’s vendee for the payment of the purchase-money, no title passed into the defendant, because of his failure to execute the notes. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Irish American Dime-Savings Bank, 105 Ga. 57 (31 S. E. 48).

3. Applying the above principle of law to the undisputed facts as shown by the evidence, a verdict for the plaintiff was properly directed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sill, J., concur. ■ Burress & Dillard, for plaintiff in error. Smith, Hammond & Smith, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 193, 26 Ga. App. 329, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everroad-v-dickson-planing-mill-co-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack