Hall v. Cain

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hall v. Cain

139 S.E. 130, 37 Ga. App. 170, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 561

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 26, 1927

Docket18293

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.E. 130 (Hall v. Cain) 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

Hall v. Cain, 139 S.E. 130, 37 Ga. App. 170, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Cain sued out a possessory warrant to recover a bale of cotton which his tenant, Hall, had sold to a warehouseman. The evidence was to the effect that Cain was present when the cotton was ginned, was present and consenting to the sale of the bale of cotton by his tenant, and was present and consenting to the warehouseman’s making a' check for the purchase price of the cotton in the name of the tenant; that after Cain and his tenant had left the warehouse with the check, and while they were in the bank for the purpose of getting the check cashed, there arose a difference as to the division of the proceeds of the check, and thereafter Cain had the warehouseman stop payment of the check. Under these facts the justice of the peace rendered a judgment in favor of the tenant. Certiorari was sued out, and the judge of the superior court sustained the certiorari.

It was error to sustain the certiorari. Under the facts here related a possessory warrant did not lie to recover the bale of cotton which had been sold with consent of the landlord.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles,' G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Cain sued out a possessory warrant to recover a bale of cotton which his tenant, Hall, had sold to a warehouseman. The evidence was to the effect that Cain was present when the cotton was ginned, was present and consenting to the sale of the bale of cotton by his tenant, and was present and consenting to the warehouseman’s making a' check for the purchase price of the cotton in the name of the tenant; that after Cain and his tenant had left the warehouse with the check, and while they were in the bank for the purpose of getting the check cashed, there arose a difference as to the division of the proceeds of the check, and thereafter Cain had the warehouseman stop payment of the check. Under these facts the justice of the peace rendered a judgment in favor of the tenant. Certiorari was sued out, and the judge of the superior court sustained the certiorari.

It was error to sustain the certiorari. Under the facts here related a possessory warrant did not lie to recover the bale of cotton which had been sold with consent of the landlord.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles,' G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 130, 37 Ga. App. 170, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-cain-gactapp-1927.