Howell v. Cordray

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howell v. Cordray

95 S.E. 762, 22 Ga. App. 195, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 237

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1918

Docket9078

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 762 (Howell v. Cordray) 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

Howell v. Cordray, 95 S.E. 762, 22 Ga. App. 195, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. Under the Civil Code (1910), § 3352, a person furnishing material for the improvement of real estate is entitled to a special lien' on the premises so improved; and when, at the time the material is furnished, the owner represents., to the seller that the material contracted for is intended to be used in the improvement- of certain property, and the seller, relying upon that statement, actually and in good faith furnishes’ it for the purpose stated, the owner will be estopped by his representation; and, as between the parties themselves, it is no defense to a proceeding seeking to sot up the special claim on the property that some of the materials thus furnished the owner were not in fact so used and applied.

2. The judgment of the court below entering up general judgment in. favor of plaintiff is affirmed, with direction that $1.32 be written off from the amount thereof; and the judgment establishing a special lien in favor of.plaintiff on the premises described in the petition is affirmed, with direction that the lien be discharged in the amount of $14.85, so that it shall be enforceable only in and for the amount remaining after such a reduction from the amount of the original recovery. Rome Hotel Co. v. Warlick, 87 Ga. 34 (13 S. E. 116).

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. B. B. Collins, for plaintiff in error. Glessner & Park, contra.

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

Jenkins, J.

1. Under the Civil Code (1910), § 3352, a person furnishing material for the improvement of real estate is entitled to a special lien' on the premises so improved; and when, at the time the material is furnished, the owner represents., to the seller that the material contracted for is intended to be used in the improvement- of certain property, and the seller, relying upon that statement, actually and in good faith furnishes’ it for the purpose stated, the owner will be estopped by his representation; and, as between the parties themselves, it is no defense to a proceeding seeking to sot up the special claim on the property that some of the materials thus furnished the owner were not in fact so used and applied.

2. The judgment of the court below entering up general judgment in. favor of plaintiff is affirmed, with direction that $1.32 be written off from the amount thereof; and the judgment establishing a special lien in favor of.plaintiff on the premises described in the petition is affirmed, with direction that the lien be discharged in the amount of $14.85, so that it shall be enforceable only in and for the amount remaining after such a reduction from the amount of the original recovery. Rome Hotel Co. v. Warlick, 87 Ga. 34 (13 S. E. 116).

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. B. B. Collins, for plaintiff in error. Glessner & Park, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 762, 22 Ga. App. 195, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-cordray-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack