Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Rickerson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Rickerson

85 S.E. 614, 16 Ga. App. 452, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 72

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 11, 1915

Docket5973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 614 (Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Rickerson) 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

Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Rickerson, 85 S.E. 614, 16 Ga. App. 452, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

The only question involved in this case is one of fact. The magistrate, on the trial of the possessory warrant for thirteen sewing-machines (the property of the Singer Sewing Machine Co., alleged to be held by its agent Rickerson, and of Avhich six only corresponded as to serial numbers with the descriptions in the warrant, the remaining seven being of different numbers), found that the thirteen Singer machines taken by the sheriff corresponded in all material respects with those for which the warrant had been sued out, and were in fact the identical machines, the only difference being in the numbers on the heads of seven of them, the defendant having testified that these seven machines, although of different numbers, were the same machines sued for, and that occasionally the numbers on the machines got changed. The justice aAvarded the thirteen machines to the plaintiff, who accepted them and gave the bond required by section 5374 of the Civil Code. The question of identity of the property was solved by the magistrate; and, as said in Butler v. Lazenby, 8 Ga. App. 88, “If the judge [of [453]*453the superior court, on certiorari,] sustains the judgment of the justice on the conflicting facts, this court will not reverse his judgment ; certainly not unless he has manifestly abused his discretion.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

The only question involved in this case is one of fact. The magistrate, on the trial of the possessory warrant for thirteen sewing-machines (the property of the Singer Sewing Machine Co., alleged to be held by its agent Rickerson, and of Avhich six only corresponded as to serial numbers with the descriptions in the warrant, the remaining seven being of different numbers), found that the thirteen Singer machines taken by the sheriff corresponded in all material respects with those for which the warrant had been sued out, and were in fact the identical machines, the only difference being in the numbers on the heads of seven of them, the defendant having testified that these seven machines, although of different numbers, were the same machines sued for, and that occasionally the numbers on the machines got changed. The justice aAvarded the thirteen machines to the plaintiff, who accepted them and gave the bond required by section 5374 of the Civil Code. The question of identity of the property was solved by the magistrate; and, as said in Butler v. Lazenby, 8 Ga. App. 88, “If the judge [of [453]*453the superior court, on certiorari,] sustains the judgment of the justice on the conflicting facts, this court will not reverse his judgment ; certainly not unless he has manifestly abused his discretion.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 614, 16 Ga. App. 452, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-sewing-machine-co-v-rickerson-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack