Flowers Lumber Co. v. Bush

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Flowers Lumber Co. v. Bush

89 S.E. 344, 18 Ga. App. 269, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 278

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 23, 1916

Docket7103

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 344 (Flowers Lumber Co. v. Bush) 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

Flowers Lumber Co. v. Bush, 89 S.E. 344, 18 Ga. App. 269, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, J.

1. In this State a security deed passes legal title to land (Civil Code, § 3306), and where, as in this case, the leasehold of the plaintiff is under one who, by making a security deed to his creditor, has divested himself of the legal title, and the plaintiff has no more than a mere possession of the land upon which the trespass is alleged to have been committed, he can not maintain his action for damages to the realty. See Morris v. McCamey, 9 Ga. 160; Hitch v. Bailey, 115 Ga. 891 (42 S. E. 252).

2. The evidence demanded a finding that the legal title to the property, upon which the defendant was alleged to have cut timber which was being boxed for turpentine by the plaintiff, was not in the person from whom the plaintiff had leased the turpentine privilege, but, on the contrary, was, by deeds duly recorded, vested in one S. P. Holland, from whom the defendant lumber company had leased the timber-cutting privilege, and that the plaintiff had no legal interest whatever in the land or the timber thereon.

3. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

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

Bboyles, J.

1. In this State a security deed passes legal title to land (Civil Code, § 3306), and where, as in this case, the leasehold of the plaintiff is under one who, by making a security deed to his creditor, has divested himself of the legal title, and the plaintiff has no more than a mere possession of the land upon which the trespass is alleged to have been committed, he can not maintain his action for damages to the realty. See Morris v. McCamey, 9 Ga. 160; Hitch v. Bailey, 115 Ga. 891 (42 S. E. 252).

2. The evidence demanded a finding that the legal title to the property, upon which the defendant was alleged to have cut timber which was being boxed for turpentine by the plaintiff, was not in the person from whom the plaintiff had leased the turpentine privilege, but, on the contrary, was, by deeds duly recorded, vested in one S. P. Holland, from whom the defendant lumber company had leased the timber-cutting privilege, and that the plaintiff had no legal interest whatever in the land or the timber thereon.

3. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 344, 18 Ga. App. 269, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flowers-lumber-co-v-bush-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

3. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack