Spikes v. Sassnett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Spikes v. Sassnett

91 S.E. 789, 19 Ga. App. 479, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 174

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1917

Docket7881

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 789 (Spikes v. Sassnett) 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

Spikes v. Sassnett, 91 S.E. 789, 19 Ga. App. 479, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Where a person left a certain number of stalks of sugar-cane in a bed, and another person, without consent of the owner, took up the cane and planted it, and subsequently the parties agreed that the cane should be cultivated by the one planting it, and that the original owner could “come and get her one-half of it in the fall,” trover would not lie against the person who planted it, for “about twenty-five hundred stalks of sugar-cane raised on a certain patch grown by” him, where there had been no segregation of these twenty-five hundred stalks from the whole amount raised, so as to render the same subject to identification. Camp v. Casey, 110 Ga. 262 (34 S. E. 277).

2. “If a nonsuit must necessarily have been awarded, although' the reason assigned for its grant may have been wrong, yet the grant itself will be upheld.” Tompkins v. Phipps, 68 Ga. 155.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and JenMns, J., concur.

■ Trover; from city court of Dublin.—Judge Hicks. June 15, 1916.

W. A. Dampler, for plaintiff.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Where a person left a certain number of stalks of sugar-cane in a bed, and another person, without consent of the owner, took up the cane and planted it, and subsequently the parties agreed that the cane should be cultivated by the one planting it, and that the original owner could “come and get her one-half of it in the fall,” trover would not lie against the person who planted it, for “about twenty-five hundred stalks of sugar-cane raised on a certain patch grown by” him, where there had been no segregation of these twenty-five hundred stalks from the whole amount raised, so as to render the same subject to identification. Camp v. Casey, 110 Ga. 262 (34 S. E. 277).

2. “If a nonsuit must necessarily have been awarded, although' the reason assigned for its grant may have been wrong, yet the grant itself will be upheld.” Tompkins v. Phipps, 68 Ga. 155.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and JenMns, J., concur.

■ Trover; from city court of Dublin.—Judge Hicks. June 15, 1916.

W. A. Dampler, for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 789, 19 Ga. App. 479, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spikes-v-sassnett-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack