Pendley Brick Co. v. Hardwick & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pendley Brick Co. v. Hardwick & Co.

64 S.E. 664, 6 Ga. App. 114, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 202

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 4, 1909

Docket1328

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 64 S.E. 664 (Pendley Brick Co. v. Hardwick & Co.) 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

Pendley Brick Co. v. Hardwick & Co., 64 S.E. 664, 6 Ga. App. 114, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 202 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. "Whether an article of personalty- connected with or attached to realty becom.es a part of the realty, and therefore such a fixture that it can not be removed therefrom, depends upon the circumstances under which the article was placed upon the realty, the uses to which it is adapted, and the parties who are at issue as to whether such an article is realty or detachable personalty.” Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 402 (51 S. E. 335). Where it is doubtful, under all the circumstances, whether the article in question is personalty or is a fixture, the doubt is to be solved by the jury. Smith v. Odum, 63 Ga. 503; Harrell v. Americus Refrigerating Co., 92 Ga. 443 (17 S. E. 623).

2. The charge of the court, when viewed as a whole, was free from error; certainly so as against the plaintiff in error.

3. The jury was authorized to find that the claim was filed for delay only. This court emphasizes its approval of the verdict in this respect, by assessing, as damages for bringing the case to this court for further delay, ten per cent, upon the amount found by the jury. Clark v. Fee, 86 Ga. 9 (12 S. E. 181). Judgment affirmed, with damages.

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

Powell, J.

1. "Whether an article of personalty- connected with or attached to realty becom.es a part of the realty, and therefore such a fixture that it can not be removed therefrom, depends upon the circumstances under which the article was placed upon the realty, the uses to which it is adapted, and the parties who are at issue as to whether such an article is realty or detachable personalty.” Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 402 (51 S. E. 335). Where it is doubtful, under all the circumstances, whether the article in question is personalty or is a fixture, the doubt is to be solved by the jury. Smith v. Odum, 63 Ga. 503; Harrell v. Americus Refrigerating Co., 92 Ga. 443 (17 S. E. 623).

2. The charge of the court, when viewed as a whole, was free from error; certainly so as against the plaintiff in error.

3. The jury was authorized to find that the claim was filed for delay only. This court emphasizes its approval of the verdict in this respect, by assessing, as damages for bringing the case to this court for further delay, ten per cent, upon the amount found by the jury. Clark v. Fee, 86 Ga. 9 (12 S. E. 181). Judgment affirmed, with damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E. 664, 6 Ga. App. 114, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendley-brick-co-v-hardwick-co-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack