Rowell v. Fincher

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rowell v. Fincher

126 S.E. 886, 33 Ga. App. 506, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 552

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 24, 1925

Docket15640

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 886 (Rowell v. Fincher) 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

Rowell v. Fincher, 126 S.E. 886, 33 Ga. App. 506, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

AcEpnENS, J.

1. A sale of corporate stock by one stockholder to another is not complete without a delivery of the stock-certificate, unless by agreement the delivery is dispensed with. Civil Code (1910), § 4125; 14 C. J. 701.

2. Whether or not an interest in a partnership can be represented by a stock-certificate, yet where a suit is instituted to recover the purchase price of the plaintiff’s interest in a certain named partnership, which it is alleged is “represented by two shares of stock,” the purchaser may, in the absence of any proof that by agreement the delivery of the stock-certificate was dispensed with, successfully defend against the suit upon tlie ground that the stock was never delivered.

.3. Where such defense was pleaded and there was evidence to the effect that the stock has never been delivered, and there was no evidence that [507]*507delivery had by agreement been dispensed with, it was error for the court to fail to submit this defense to the jury.

Decided February 24, 1925. M. J. Head, Walter Matthews, for plaintiffs in error. Edwards & Edwards, contra.

Judgment reversed,

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eoneur.

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