Newman v. Cash

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Newman v. Cash

169 S.E. 520, 47 Ga. App. 39, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 282

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 24, 1933

Docket22939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 169 S.E. 520 (Newman v. Cash) 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

Newman v. Cash, 169 S.E. 520, 47 Ga. App. 39, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 282 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. Where an attempt is made to foreclose a laborer’s lien, a demand must be alleged, and where on the trial of a counter-affidavit to such foreclosure the evidence shows that no such demand was made, a judgment o'f the trial court finding in favor of the lien is error. Oivil Code (1910), § 3366 (1). In the present case the evidence of plaintiffs in the justice’s court did not show a demand, and, the defendant having denied such a demand, the verdict finding in favor of the lien was contrary to law.

2. By § 3356 of the Code of 1910, “proprietors of planing-mills and other similar establishments” (italics ours) are given liens for work done on material furnished by others. In Murphey v. McGough, 105 Ga. 816 (31 S. E. 757), it was held that a sawmill is within the meaning of the words “other similar establishments.” The evidence of the plaintiffs in [40]*40the court below established the fact that they were sawmill proprietors. Therefore, under the authority of Evans v. Beddingfield, 106 Ga. 755 (32 S. E. 664), and Jones v. Newsome, 27 Ga. App. 386 (108 S. E. 558), they were, if entitled to anything, entitled to a lien as provided in § 3356, supra, and not to a laborer’s lien.

Decided May 24, 1933. M. J. Head, for plaintiff in error. I. N. Clieney, contra.

3. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in overruling and dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. Where an attempt is made to foreclose a laborer’s lien, a demand must be alleged, and where on the trial of a counter-affidavit to such foreclosure the evidence shows that no such demand was made, a judgment o'f the trial court finding in favor of the lien is error. Oivil Code (1910), § 3366 (1). In the present case the evidence of plaintiffs in the justice’s court did not show a demand, and, the defendant having denied such a demand, the verdict finding in favor of the lien was contrary to law.

2. By § 3356 of the Code of 1910, “proprietors of planing-mills and other similar establishments” (italics ours) are given liens for work done on material furnished by others. In Murphey v. McGough, 105 Ga. 816 (31 S. E. 757), it was held that a sawmill is within the meaning of the words “other similar establishments.” The evidence of the plaintiffs in [40]*40the court below established the fact that they were sawmill proprietors. Therefore, under the authority of Evans v. Beddingfield, 106 Ga. 755 (32 S. E. 664), and Jones v. Newsome, 27 Ga. App. 386 (108 S. E. 558), they were, if entitled to anything, entitled to a lien as provided in § 3356, supra, and not to a laborer’s lien.

Decided May 24, 1933. M. J. Head, for plaintiff in error. I. N. Clieney, contra.

3. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in overruling and dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 520, 47 Ga. App. 39, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-cash-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack