Page v. Moxley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Page v. Moxley

112 S.E. 731, 28 Ga. App. 620, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 725

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1922

Docket13351

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 731 (Page v. Moxley) 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

Page v. Moxley, 112 S.E. 731, 28 Ga. App. 620, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 725 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

To support an action of trover, the plaintiff must show either title in himself at the time when the suit was commenced, prior possession, or the right of possession. Southern Ry. Co. v. Strozier, 10 Ga. App. 157 (73 S. E. 42). Under this rule, the evidence in this case did not authorize the verdict. It is true that an intention to dispense with actual delivery may be inferred from circumstances, and that the parties may consider a sale complete in respect to both prices and delivery, so that title may pass; but in this case the evidence is clear that final payment and final delivery were not made, and title to the property in question had not yet been passed to the plaintiff. Nor does it appear that the plaintiff had either prior possession or the right of possession of the property. It was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and, Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

To support an action of trover, the plaintiff must show either title in himself at the time when the suit was commenced, prior possession, or the right of possession. Southern Ry. Co. v. Strozier, 10 Ga. App. 157 (73 S. E. 42). Under this rule, the evidence in this case did not authorize the verdict. It is true that an intention to dispense with actual delivery may be inferred from circumstances, and that the parties may consider a sale complete in respect to both prices and delivery, so that title may pass; but in this case the evidence is clear that final payment and final delivery were not made, and title to the property in question had not yet been passed to the plaintiff. Nor does it appear that the plaintiff had either prior possession or the right of possession of the property. It was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and, Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 731, 28 Ga. App. 620, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-moxley-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack