Nations v. Lassiter

95 S.E.2d 25, 94 Ga. App. 504, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 592
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 23, 1956
Docket36362
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 S.E.2d 25 (Nations v. Lassiter) 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
Nations v. Lassiter, 95 S.E.2d 25, 94 Ga. App. 504, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

Qtjillian, J.

1. Where the defendant in a trover case makes a solemn admission in his pleadings that he is in possession of the chattel for the recovery of which the action is instituted, he will not be permitted to disprove such admission without first withdrawing it by appropriate amendment. Clift & Goodrich, Inc. v. Mincey Mfg. Co., 41 Ga. App. 38 (152 S. E. 136); Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Van Landingham, 44 Ga. App. 606 (162 S. E. 304). Where a fact alleged in the petition is admitted in the answer, it needs no proof. Moss v. Youngblood, 187 Ga. 188 (2) (200 S. E. 689). Where possession of an automobile which the plaintiff seeks to recover in a trover action is alleged by the petition to be in the defendant and such averment is admitted in the answer, there is no issue as to whether the defendant is in possession of the automobile.

2. The true owner of personal property may lose title thereto to an innocent purchaser for value' without notice by giving to a third party such external indicia of title as, according to the custom or trade, usually accompanies the authority to dispose of the property. Patterson Co. v. Peoples Loan &c. Co., 158 Ga. 503 (4) (123 S. E. 704); Capital Automobile Co. v. Ward, 54 Ga. App. 873 (189 S. E. 713). There was no evidence in this case that the owner or his agent gave any person such indicia of title. The trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur. *505 Mitchell & Mitchell, Erwin Mitchell, Pittman, Kinney & Pope, H. E. Kinney, for plaintiff in error. James C. Holcombe, contra.

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

Related

Rohatensky v. Woodall
572 S.E.2d 354 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002)
Stephens v. Tate
249 S.E.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Gouldman-Taber Pontiac, Inc. v. Thomas
99 S.E.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
In Re Wingler
58 S.E.2d 372 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E.2d 25, 94 Ga. App. 504, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nations-v-lassiter-gactapp-1956.