Taylor Iron Works & Supply Co. v. Everett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Taylor Iron Works & Supply Co. v. Everett

150 S.E. 855, 40 Ga. App. 683, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 710

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1929

Docket19654

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 855 (Taylor Iron Works & Supply Co. v. Everett) 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

Taylor Iron Works & Supply Co. v. Everett, 150 S.E. 855, 40 Ga. App. 683, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 710 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Belt., J.

1. Where in a written agreement between a debtor and a creditor the title to certain personalty was conveyed as security for the debt, and the instrument further provided that if the debt was not paid at maturity the creditor might proceed to dispose of the property at such time and in such manner as he deemed best to secure his debt, and account to the debtor for any surplus above the debt and expenses, the creditor was not guilty of a conversion where, after the debtor’s default, he seized and removed the property for the purpose contemplated by the agreement. Wilmerding v. Rhodes-Haverty Furniture Co., 122 Ga. 312 (50 S. E. 100); Mathewson v. Brigman Motors Co., 23 Ga. App. 304 (2) (98 S. E. 98); Pannell v. McGarity, 27 Ga. App. 71 (107 S. E. 352); Fulghum v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 30 Ga. App. 609 (118 S. E. 600).

2. In the present trover suit by a debtor against his creditor, based upon a seizure by the defendant of property which had been conveyed to it by the plaintiff to secure a debt, the facts appearing as above indicated, the verdict found for the plaintiff was unauthorized, and should have been set aside on the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Belt., J.

1. Where in a written agreement between a debtor and a creditor the title to certain personalty was conveyed as security for the debt, and the instrument further provided that if the debt was not paid at maturity the creditor might proceed to dispose of the property at such time and in such manner as he deemed best to secure his debt, and account to the debtor for any surplus above the debt and expenses, the creditor was not guilty of a conversion where, after the debtor’s default, he seized and removed the property for the purpose contemplated by the agreement. Wilmerding v. Rhodes-Haverty Furniture Co., 122 Ga. 312 (50 S. E. 100); Mathewson v. Brigman Motors Co., 23 Ga. App. 304 (2) (98 S. E. 98); Pannell v. McGarity, 27 Ga. App. 71 (107 S. E. 352); Fulghum v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 30 Ga. App. 609 (118 S. E. 600).

2. In the present trover suit by a debtor against his creditor, based upon a seizure by the defendant of property which had been conveyed to it by the plaintiff to secure a debt, the facts appearing as above indicated, the verdict found for the plaintiff was unauthorized, and should have been set aside on the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 855, 40 Ga. App. 683, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-iron-works-supply-co-v-everett-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack