Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Shepherd v. Wallace, Shackleford & Co.

Shepherd v. Wallace, Shackleford & Co.

111 S.E. 222, 28 Ga. App. 408, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 552
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 20, 1922
Docket12824
StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 222 (Shepherd v. Wallace, Shackleford & 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
Shepherd v. Wallace, Shackleford & Co., 111 S.E. 222, 28 Ga. App. 408, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Opinion

Hill, J.

The title to a crop which was up and growing was legally conveyed in writing and the writing duly recorded. A -portion of this crop was afterwards gathered and placed in the hands of one who had furnished fertilizer used in making the crop, and the agreed value of it credited on the fertilizer account. The holder of the title brought trover for this portion of the crop against the fertilizer dealer in whose hands it had been-placed. All these transactions occurred in the same county. Held: The judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Williams v. Mitchem, 151 Ga. 227 (106 S. E. 284).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eoneur.

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

Related

Williams v. Mitchem
106 S.E. 284 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 S.E. 222, 28 Ga. App. 408, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shepherd-v-wallace-shackleford-co-gactapp-1922.