Stifel & Sons Inc. v. McCormick

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stifel & Sons Inc. v. McCormick

1 S.E.2d 220, 59 Ga. App. 449, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 59

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1939

Docket27258

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 220 (Stifel & Sons Inc. v. McCormick) 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

Stifel & Sons Inc. v. McCormick, 1 S.E.2d 220, 59 Ga. App. 449, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyxjss, O. J.

I. A possessory warrant can not be maintained unless the property, for which the warrant was issued, was taken from the possession of the party complaining, without his consent, or unless the property, having recently been in his legally acquired possession, has disappeared without his consent, and has been taken possession of by the party complained against under some pretended claim and without lawful authority. Code, § 82-101; Wilburn v. Beasley, 31 Ga. App. [450]*450107 (119 S. E. 537); Bryan v. Witsett, 39 Ga,. 715, 717; Trotti v. Wyly & Greene, 77 Ga. 684; Owens v. Outlaw, 105 Ga. 477 (30 S. E. 427).

Decided February 14, 1939. II. M. Rylee, for plaintiff. Eugene A. Eplmg, for defendant.

2. In the instant case, the agreed statement of facts failed to show that the property in question had ever been in the possession of the plaintiff, or that the defendant acquired possession of it without lawful authority. It follows that the court did not err in dismissing the warrant. The decision of this court in Ayers v. Swall, 17 Ga. App. 519 (87 S. E. 763), cited by the plaintiff in error, was in reference to the right of a landlord to repossess, by possessory warrant, crops disposed of by his tenant, and is not applicable here, since landlords were given that special right by the act of 1889, now embodied in Code, § 61-503.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyxjss, O. J.

I. A possessory warrant can not be maintained unless the property, for which the warrant was issued, was taken from the possession of the party complaining, without his consent, or unless the property, having recently been in his legally acquired possession, has disappeared without his consent, and has been taken possession of by the party complained against under some pretended claim and without lawful authority. Code, § 82-101; Wilburn v. Beasley, 31 Ga. App. [450]*450107 (119 S. E. 537); Bryan v. Witsett, 39 Ga,. 715, 717; Trotti v. Wyly & Greene, 77 Ga. 684; Owens v. Outlaw, 105 Ga. 477 (30 S. E. 427).

Decided February 14, 1939. II. M. Rylee, for plaintiff. Eugene A. Eplmg, for defendant.

2. In the instant case, the agreed statement of facts failed to show that the property in question had ever been in the possession of the plaintiff, or that the defendant acquired possession of it without lawful authority. It follows that the court did not err in dismissing the warrant. The decision of this court in Ayers v. Swall, 17 Ga. App. 519 (87 S. E. 763), cited by the plaintiff in error, was in reference to the right of a landlord to repossess, by possessory warrant, crops disposed of by his tenant, and is not applicable here, since landlords were given that special right by the act of 1889, now embodied in Code, § 61-503.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 220, 59 Ga. App. 449, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stifel-sons-inc-v-mccormick-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack