Skinner v. Hillis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Skinner v. Hillis

104 S.E. 508, 25 Ga. App. 711, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 164

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 19, 1920

Docket11383

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 104 S.E. 508 (Skinner v. Hillis) 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

Skinner v. Hillis, 104 S.E. 508, 25 Ga. App. 711, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. This being an action in trover to recover cotton alleged to be in the possession of the seller, the sole issue in the trial is that of title to the property in dispute. Berry v. Jackson, 115 Ga. 196 (41 S. E. 698, 90 Am. St. Rep. 102) ; Barfield Music House v. Harris, 20 Ga. App. 42 (92 S. E. 402).

2. Title to cotton sold by planters and commission merchants, on cash sale, does not pass until it is fully paid for. Civil Code (1910) § 4126; Sell v. Moss, 11 Ga. App. 854 (75 S. E. 985, 76 S. E. 988).

(а) Just as it has been held that the provisions of this statute are applicable to sales by commission merchants and factors on their own account, as well as sales by them as representatives of the planter National Bank of Augusta v. Augusta Cotton Co., 104 Ga. 403, 30 S. E. 888; Savannah Cotton-Press Asso. v. MacIntyre, 92 Ga. 166, 17 S. E. 320), so it has been held that the provisions of this statute are applicable to sales by a planter, without reference to whether the particular cotton involved was produced by Mm or acquired from another. Butler v. Ga. & Ala. Ry., 119 Ga. 959 (2) (47 S. E. 320).

(b) The term “ on cash sale,” as here used, is not confined to sales where the payment of actual money is to be made immediately, but includes all sales where it is expressly understood that the payment of actual money shall not be delayed for any longer period of time than is necessary, in the ordinary and usual course of business. McCall v. Hunter, 8 Ga. App. 612 (70 S. E. 59).

3. It follows that, irrespective of whether or not the contract in this ease was within the statute of frauds, and whatever might be the rights of the plaintiff in a claim for breach of contract, the action in trover will not lie, since, under the statute referred to, the title to the cotton had not passed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur. E. V. Heath, for plaintiff. Brinson & Hatcher, for defendant.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. This being an action in trover to recover cotton alleged to be in the possession of the seller, the sole issue in the trial is that of title to the property in dispute. Berry v. Jackson, 115 Ga. 196 (41 S. E. 698, 90 Am. St. Rep. 102) ; Barfield Music House v. Harris, 20 Ga. App. 42 (92 S. E. 402).

2. Title to cotton sold by planters and commission merchants, on cash sale, does not pass until it is fully paid for. Civil Code (1910) § 4126; Sell v. Moss, 11 Ga. App. 854 (75 S. E. 985, 76 S. E. 988).

(а) Just as it has been held that the provisions of this statute are applicable to sales by commission merchants and factors on their own account, as well as sales by them as representatives of the planter National Bank of Augusta v. Augusta Cotton Co., 104 Ga. 403, 30 S. E. 888; Savannah Cotton-Press Asso. v. MacIntyre, 92 Ga. 166, 17 S. E. 320), so it has been held that the provisions of this statute are applicable to sales by a planter, without reference to whether the particular cotton involved was produced by Mm or acquired from another. Butler v. Ga. & Ala. Ry., 119 Ga. 959 (2) (47 S. E. 320).

(b) The term “ on cash sale,” as here used, is not confined to sales where the payment of actual money is to be made immediately, but includes all sales where it is expressly understood that the payment of actual money shall not be delayed for any longer period of time than is necessary, in the ordinary and usual course of business. McCall v. Hunter, 8 Ga. App. 612 (70 S. E. 59).

3. It follows that, irrespective of whether or not the contract in this ease was within the statute of frauds, and whatever might be the rights of the plaintiff in a claim for breach of contract, the action in trover will not lie, since, under the statute referred to, the title to the cotton had not passed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur. E. V. Heath, for plaintiff. Brinson & Hatcher, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E. 508, 25 Ga. App. 711, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-hillis-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack