Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Seaboard Finance Co.

107 S.E.2d 913, 99 Ga. App. 138, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 802
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 19, 1959
Docket37534
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 S.E.2d 913 (Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Seaboard Finance 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
Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Seaboard Finance Co., 107 S.E.2d 913, 99 Ga. App. 138, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

We think that the description of the property contained in the bill of sale to secure debt which was “1 chair, orange; 1 chair, black; 1 chair, rocker; 1 green sofa; 1 stove, gas; . . . etc.” with the further description, “now located at the address shown above,” was a sufficient description to support a trover action against the defendant. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Furniture Co., 120 Ga. 879 (48 S. E. 333). [139]*139See also North American Loan &c. Co. No. 2 v. Burel, 89 Ga. App. 654 (80 S. E. 2d 495). The plaintiff in error admits that as between the plaintiff and the Melvins, the vendees in the bill of sale, the description would have been sufficient, but contends that the description was not good as to the defendant, a stranger to the bill of sale. With this contention we cannot agree. In the Thomas Furniture Co. case the conditional-sale contract which contained the description of the property was between Thomas Furniture Company, the seller, and W. W. Carr, the buyer. Thomas Furniture Company brought a trover action against the T. & C. Furniture Company, who was not a party to the contract, relying on the description of the property as given in the contract. The relationships in the instant case are the same as were those in the Thomas Furniture Co. case and the situation presented is the same.

The petition contained a sufficient description of the property and thus stated a cause of action against the general demurrer urged; therefore, the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Yancey Brothers Co. v. Dehco, Inc.
134 S.E.2d 828 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 S.E.2d 913, 99 Ga. App. 138, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterchi-bros-stores-inc-v-seaboard-finance-co-gactapp-1959.