Owens v. Bridges

79 S.E. 225, 13 Ga. App. 419, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 182
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 9, 1913
Docket5002
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 79 S.E. 225 (Owens v. Bridges) 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
Owens v. Bridges, 79 S.E. 225, 13 Ga. App. 419, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 182 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. A paper stipulating that the -maker conveys certain described personalty to secure a debt, and that upon payment of the debt the creditor will reconvey the property to the debtor, is a bill of sale to secure a debt, and not a mortgage. The stipulation for a reconveyance of the property is not a defeasance clause, such as a provision that the instrument would be void upon payment of the debt. Upon payment of the debt a reconveyance can be compelled, but until this is done the instrument remains operative as a bill of sale, even though the debt is .paid. See Bellerby v. Thomas, 105 Ga. 477 (4) (30 S. E. 425); Williamson v. Orient Ins. Co., 100 Ga. 791 (28 S. E. 914); Pitts v. Maier, 115 Ga. 281 (41 S. E. 570); Ellison v. Wilson, 7 Ga. App. 214 (66 S. E. 631).

2. “A recorded deed of personal property is entitled to go in evidence without other proof.” Bell v. McCauley, 29 Ga. 355 (2). In Giannone v. Fleetwood, 93 Ga. 491 (21 S. E. 76), the court was dealing with an unrecorded bill of sale.

3. The plaintiff having elected to take a money verdict, the measure of his damages could not exceed the principal and interest of his debt, less any sum which had been received by him in part payment, notwithstanding the value of the property exceeded the amount due at the time of the trial. Holmes v. Langston, 110 Ga. 861 (36 S. E. 251). The original debt was $350, with interest from January 21, 1907, at 7 per cent, per annum. The plaintiff testified that on or about September 25, 1910, he had received on the debt $106. Hence the amount due on the date of the verdict, to wit, March 25, 1913, was $381.20. The verdict was for $448. Direction is given that the excess be written off from the verdict and judgment. Judgment affirmed, with direction.

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

Related

Purser v. Charles S. Martin Distributing Co.
140 S.E.2d 75 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
American National Bank & Trust Company v. Davis
122 S.E.2d 477 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
McDaniel v. Selman
53 S.E.2d 391 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Watkins v. Muse
50 S.E.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)
Jackson v. Parks
174 S.E. 203 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Tarver v. Beneficial Loan Society
148 S.E. 288 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Worsham v. Penn
122 S.E. 817 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Conner v. Farmers & Merchants Bank
103 S.E. 474 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Watts v. Wight Investment Co.
103 S.E. 184 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Lane v. Smart
94 S.E. 325 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
McCurry v. Hartwell Bank
236 F. 556 (N.D. Georgia, 1916)
Hill v. Marshall
90 S.E. 175 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Dewit v. Bozeman
87 S.E. 1100 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 S.E. 225, 13 Ga. App. 419, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-bridges-gactapp-1913.