Lee v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lee v. Hamilton

62 S.E.2d 419, 83 Ga. App. 59, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 1027

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 28, 1950

Docket33161

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 S.E.2d 419 (Lee v. Hamilton) 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

Lee v. Hamilton, 62 S.E.2d 419, 83 Ga. App. 59, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 1027 (Ga. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, P. J.

1. Where a county commissioner is in possession of . a county automobile assigned to him for his exclusive use by virtue of his office, but such possession is not in his own right but solely as an officer of the county, such commissioner may not maintain an action in trover in his own name to recover the automobile, even though the automobile was wrongfully taken from such commissioner’s possession, as the commissioner’s possession was that of the county. Mitchell v. Georgia & Alabama Ry., 111 Ga. 760 (36 S. E. 971); and see Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Greene, 41 Ga. App. 794(6) (154 S. E. 809); Eibel v. Mechanics Loan & Savings Co., 52 Ga. App. 349 (183 S. E. 133); Paschal v. Godley, 34 Ga. App. 321 (129 S. E. 565); Andrew v. George Muse Clothing Co., 44 Ga. App. 291 (161 S. E. 296). And where, on the trial of the case, such facts and circumstances are made to appear, it is not error for the trial court, after all the evidence is in, to direct a verdict for the defendant in such trover action.

2. In view of the ruling made in the foregoing division of this opinion, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining assignments of error made in the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

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

MacIntyre, P. J.

1. Where a county commissioner is in possession of . a county automobile assigned to him for his exclusive use by virtue of his office, but such possession is not in his own right but solely as an officer of the county, such commissioner may not maintain an action in trover in his own name to recover the automobile, even though the automobile was wrongfully taken from such commissioner’s possession, as the commissioner’s possession was that of the county. Mitchell v. Georgia & Alabama Ry., 111 Ga. 760 (36 S. E. 971); and see Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Greene, 41 Ga. App. 794(6) (154 S. E. 809); Eibel v. Mechanics Loan & Savings Co., 52 Ga. App. 349 (183 S. E. 133); Paschal v. Godley, 34 Ga. App. 321 (129 S. E. 565); Andrew v. George Muse Clothing Co., 44 Ga. App. 291 (161 S. E. 296). And where, on the trial of the case, such facts and circumstances are made to appear, it is not error for the trial court, after all the evidence is in, to direct a verdict for the defendant in such trover action.

2. In view of the ruling made in the foregoing division of this opinion, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining assignments of error made in the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 S.E.2d 419, 83 Ga. App. 59, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-hamilton-gactapp-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack