Sparkman v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sparkman v. Brown

156 S.E. 240, 42 Ga. App. 335, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 391

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1930

Docket20372

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 240 (Sparkman v. Brown) 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

Sparkman v. Brown, 156 S.E. 240, 42 Ga. App. 335, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 391 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. “In a sale of goods, where nothing is said between the parties as to the time of payment of the price, the transaction is understood to be a cash sale. Civil Code (1910), § 4130; 23 R. C. L. 1382 (§ 205) ; 35 Cyc. 264 (§3). In such a case the mere fact that the buyer obtained possession of the goods without payment of the purchase-price does not, as between the vendor and the vendee, operate to pass the title, and trover will lie against him to recover the goods or their equivalent in money.” Morris v. Walker Bros. Co., 29 Ga. App. 476 (2) (116 S. E. 201), and cit.

2. The evidence in the instant trover case, notwithstanding conflict in the testimony as to another matter, showed conclusively' and without dispute that the defendant bought the property on cash sale, and had neither paid nor tendered any part of the purchase-money before the filing of the suit or at any other time; and the evidence, therefore, demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue as to title.

3. There was no evidence from which the jury could have inferred a waiver by the plaintiff of the cash condition of the sale, and, the defendant having the burden of establishing his contention upon this question, a finding for the plaintiff thereon was the only proper result. Civil Code (1910), § 5746; Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 145 Ga. 716 (89 S. E. 817) ; Kaufman v. Young, 32 Ga. App. 135 (5) (122 S. E. 822).

4. The trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkims, P. J., and Stephens, J., eonour.

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

Bell, J.

1. “In a sale of goods, where nothing is said between the parties as to the time of payment of the price, the transaction is understood to be a cash sale. Civil Code (1910), § 4130; 23 R. C. L. 1382 (§ 205) ; 35 Cyc. 264 (§3). In such a case the mere fact that the buyer obtained possession of the goods without payment of the purchase-price does not, as between the vendor and the vendee, operate to pass the title, and trover will lie against him to recover the goods or their equivalent in money.” Morris v. Walker Bros. Co., 29 Ga. App. 476 (2) (116 S. E. 201), and cit.

2. The evidence in the instant trover case, notwithstanding conflict in the testimony as to another matter, showed conclusively' and without dispute that the defendant bought the property on cash sale, and had neither paid nor tendered any part of the purchase-money before the filing of the suit or at any other time; and the evidence, therefore, demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue as to title.

3. There was no evidence from which the jury could have inferred a waiver by the plaintiff of the cash condition of the sale, and, the defendant having the burden of establishing his contention upon this question, a finding for the plaintiff thereon was the only proper result. Civil Code (1910), § 5746; Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 145 Ga. 716 (89 S. E. 817) ; Kaufman v. Young, 32 Ga. App. 135 (5) (122 S. E. 822).

4. The trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkims, P. J., and Stephens, J., eonour.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 240, 42 Ga. App. 335, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparkman-v-brown-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack