McCook v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McCook v. Brown

112 S.E. 151, 28 Ga. App. 525, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 654

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 26, 1922

Docket13195

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 151 (McCook v. Brown) 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

McCook v. Brown, 112 S.E. 151, 28 Ga. App. 525, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 654 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Hiix, J.

1. An owner of timber employed a sawmill operator to saw his timber into lumber. The sawmill operator employed a laborer to do the actual labor of sawing the timber. The labor was done with the knowledge of the owner of the timber, and the services of the laborer were accepted by him. Held: The laborer had a statutory lien on the products of his labor, to wit, the lumber, and had the right to foreclose bis lien thereon. It was immaterial that he was not employed in the first instance by the owner of the timber. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3357, 3359, 3335; Sattes & Wimer Lumber Co. v. Hales, 11 Ga. App. 569 (75 S. E. 898).

2. The judgment of the superior court, overruling the certiorari from the judgment of the justice’s court finding in favor of the laborer’s lien, wat, amply sustained by the evidence, and no error of law is complained of.

'Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hiix, J.

1. An owner of timber employed a sawmill operator to saw his timber into lumber. The sawmill operator employed a laborer to do the actual labor of sawing the timber. The labor was done with the knowledge of the owner of the timber, and the services of the laborer were accepted by him. Held: The laborer had a statutory lien on the products of his labor, to wit, the lumber, and had the right to foreclose bis lien thereon. It was immaterial that he was not employed in the first instance by the owner of the timber. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3357, 3359, 3335; Sattes & Wimer Lumber Co. v. Hales, 11 Ga. App. 569 (75 S. E. 898).

2. The judgment of the superior court, overruling the certiorari from the judgment of the justice’s court finding in favor of the laborer’s lien, wat, amply sustained by the evidence, and no error of law is complained of.

'Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 151, 28 Ga. App. 525, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccook-v-brown-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack