Shearer v. Housch

124 S.E. 356, 32 Ga. App. 663, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 585
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 19, 1924
Docket15067
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 124 S.E. 356 (Shearer v. Housch) 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
Shearer v. Housch, 124 S.E. 356, 32 Ga. App. 663, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A recorded contract of sale retaining in the vendor the title to “one Hanson Six Touring Car, Motor No. 7 W 8225, Serial No. 1504,” does not constitute constructive notice of the retention of title to one Hanson Six Touring Car, Motor No. 82225, serial No. 1504, in the absence of any evidence otherwise indicating that the two descriptions applied to the same ear, and where it appears that the only method of distinguishing one Hanson Six Touring Car from another is by both the motor number and the serial number.

2. In a suit in trover, for the alleged conversion of “one Hanson Six Touring Car, Motor No. 7 W 8225, Serial No. 1504,” to which the plaintiff claimed title under a retention-of-title contract of sale, where the evidence showed that the car converted was in fact the ear sued for, being the ear bought by the defendant from the plaintiff’s vendee, but was one Hanson Six Touring car, Motor No. 82225 (not 7 W 8225), and serial No. 1504, the record of the contract did not constitute constructive notice to the defendant of the plaintiff’s retained title in the car; and there being no evidence otherwise that the defendant had notice of the plaintiff’s title, the direction of a verdict for the defendant was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., coneu/r.

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

Related

Goforth v. Scoggins
89 S.E.2d 569 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
TRUSCO FINANCE COMPANY v. Childs
75 S.E.2d 336 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Master Loan Service Inc. v. Maddox
23 S.E.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Shephard v. Van Doren
60 P.2d 635 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1936)
Pinson-Brunson Motor Co. v. Bank of Danielsville
151 S.E. 549 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
In re Hartley
29 F.2d 916 (M.D. Georgia, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 S.E. 356, 32 Ga. App. 663, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shearer-v-housch-gactapp-1924.