Farmers Bank of Pelham v. Powell

113 S.E. 818, 29 Ga. App. 100, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 84
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 26, 1922
Docket12786
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 818 (Farmers Bank of Pelham v. Powell) 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
Farmers Bank of Pelham v. Powell, 113 S.E. 818, 29 Ga. App. 100, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 84 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where two parties claim title to personalty, each under a different chain of title from vendors who were in possession but had never been in privity with each other, one of such parties does not establish title to the property as a matter of law. Where one sues the other in trover the plaintiff can not prevail as a matter of law.

2. A plaintiff in trover must recover upon his own title; and where he has never been in possession of the property sued for he can nevertheless establish a prima facie title upon proof of ..a bill of sale to him from his vendor who at the time of the execution of the bill of sale [101]*101was in actual possession claiming title. But possession of personal property being sufficient prima facie to establish title in the person in possession, proof that the defendant, or one under whom the defendant claims title, had possession of the property at a time subsequent to the execution of the bill of sale under which the plaintiff claims, in the absence of any proof that they claimed in privity with the plaintiff or his vendor, is sufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie case and authorize the jury to find for the defendant.

Decided September 26, 1922. J. J. Hill, 0. B'. McElvey, for plaintiff in error. H. H. Merry contra.

3. None of the assignments of error in the plaintiff’s petition for certiorari contain any merit, and the court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., concurs. Bell, J., disqualified.

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

Related

Livingston v. Epsten-Roberts Co.
177 S.E. 79 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Haas & Howell v. Godby
125 S.E. 897 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 S.E. 818, 29 Ga. App. 100, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-bank-of-pelham-v-powell-gactapp-1922.