Sheffield v. Dean

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sheffield v. Dean

135 S.E. 109, 36 Ga. App. 56, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 759

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 16, 1926

Docket17145

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 109 (Sheffield v. Dean) 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

Sheffield v. Dean, 135 S.E. 109, 36 Ga. App. 56, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 759 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. Where a bill of sale to secure a debt described the property as “30 head of horses now located at the residence of said B. S. Jones [the maker], in the 12th district of Miller county, Georgia,” the description was so vague and indefinite that the record of the instrument was, as a matter of law, insufficient to give constructive notice to a purchaser of a part of the property from one other than the maker. Nussbaum v. Waterman, 9 Ga. App. 56 (3) (70 S. E. 259); Reynolds v. Tifton Guano Co., 20 Ga. App. 49 (1) (92 S. E. 389); Ellis v. Lynch, 28 Ga. App. 529 (112 S. E. 151); Hicks v. Walker Brothers Co., 31 Ga. App. 395 (2) (120 S. E. 694); Nix v. Citizens Bank, 34 Ga. App. 546 (2) (130 S. E. 597).

2. T'he above ruling controls all the special grounds of the motion for new trial, adversely to the plaintiff in error. The evidence authorized the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. Where a bill of sale to secure a debt described the property as “30 head of horses now located at the residence of said B. S. Jones [the maker], in the 12th district of Miller county, Georgia,” the description was so vague and indefinite that the record of the instrument was, as a matter of law, insufficient to give constructive notice to a purchaser of a part of the property from one other than the maker. Nussbaum v. Waterman, 9 Ga. App. 56 (3) (70 S. E. 259); Reynolds v. Tifton Guano Co., 20 Ga. App. 49 (1) (92 S. E. 389); Ellis v. Lynch, 28 Ga. App. 529 (112 S. E. 151); Hicks v. Walker Brothers Co., 31 Ga. App. 395 (2) (120 S. E. 694); Nix v. Citizens Bank, 34 Ga. App. 546 (2) (130 S. E. 597).

2. T'he above ruling controls all the special grounds of the motion for new trial, adversely to the plaintiff in error. The evidence authorized the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 109, 36 Ga. App. 56, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheffield-v-dean-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack