Meredith v. Knott & Hollingsworth

34 Ga. 222
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 15, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 34 Ga. 222 (Meredith v. Knott & Hollingsworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Meredith v. Knott & Hollingsworth, 34 Ga. 222 (Ga. 1865).

Opinion

Eyoh, J.

There was no error in the refusal of the Court to dismiss the warrant on the ground that it was not issued by the Judge before whom the affidavit was made.

The Judge issuing the warrant, could not have done so without an affidavit; and as that affidavit was made before a Judge having the same power to administer the affidavit as himself, it was p,s binding on the party making it, and as effectual as an authority to the Judge to issue the warrant, as if made before himself.—Crow vs. Morris, 15 Ga., 303.

When the re'al and important question made by this record, and that is, whether prepossessory warrant was a proper proceeding for the recovery of the possession of property in a case like this, was presented to the Court, the question was distinctly put by the Court to. the counsel, whether there was any question as • to the title to the property, involved in the proceeding; and it was as distinctly stated by counsel for [225]*225both parties, that there was not. The title, then, being conceded to be in the plaintiffs in the warrant, the only question before the Court was, whether the possession, under the circumstances, could be settled by possessory warrant, or rather, whether a possessory warrant was a proper and sufficient remedy ? Ye are clear that it is. After the plaintiffs had purchased the cotton and deposited it with the defendant, his possession was that of the plaintiffs’. They had a right to go and take it whenever they chose ; but when this was denied, and the defendant refused to let them have it, the possession was changed, and that of Meredith was wrongful, tortious, and fraudulent; and in all such cases, we hold that a possessory warrant is the proper remedy.

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

Related

Industrial Lumber Co. v. Strickland
30 S.E.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Headrick Bros. v. Wheat
174 S.E. 545 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Bracewell v. Moore
151 S.E. 664 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Smith v. Whitaker
148 S.E. 746 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Whitworth v. Carter
147 S.E. 904 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Wilburn v. Beasley
119 S.E. 537 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Tison v. Ferguson
87 S.E. 1089 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Grantham v. Lance
79 S.E. 481 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Monk v. Gay
59 S.E. 1117 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Goodwill v. Peeples
58 S.E. 1115 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Brown v. Todd
53 S.E. 678 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Allen v. Wheeler
48 S.E. 923 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Sheriff v. Thompson
42 S.E. 738 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Trotti v. Wyly & Greene
77 Ga. 684 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1886)
Hillyer v. Brogden
67 Ga. 24 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1880)
Cobb v. Megrath & Patterson
36 Ga. 625 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Ga. 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meredith-v-knott-hollingsworth-ga-1865.