Fox v. Smith

85 S.E. 856, 143 Ga. 547, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 514
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 19, 1915·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. “All mechanics of every sort, for work done and material furnished in manufacturing or repairing personal property, shall have a special lien on the same.” Civil Code, § 3354. The lien so provided for is afforded to mechanics, notwithstanding the work employed in manufacturing or repairing the property may have been performed entirety by an employee of the mechanic. Quillian v. Central Railroad &c. Co., 52 Ga. 374. See also Bruton & Wade v. Beasley, 135 Ga. 412 (69 S. E. 561).

(o) Accordingly, a flfm engaged in operating a repair-shop where others are employed to do expert-mechanical work, and where material is furnished for the repair of carriages and automobiles, is entitled to a lien-on the property manufactured or improved.

2. The above rulings dispose of the only question raised by the bill of exceptions. ■ Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fox v. Smith, 85 S.E. 856, 143 Ga. 547, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 514 (Ga. 1915).

85 S.E. 856 (Fox v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southern General Insurance v. Auto Transformation, Inc.
424 S.E.2d 883 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
Frost Motor Co. v. Pierce
33 S.E.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Poss Bros. v. Haynie
139 S.E. 127 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Hilley v. Lunsford
115 S.E. 667 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Duffy v. Hardy Auto Co.
180 Iowa 745 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)