Tillman v. Webb & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tillman v. Webb & Co.

87 S.E. 904, 17 Ga. App. 620, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 817

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 10, 1916

Docket6368

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 904 (Tillman v. Webb & 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

Tillman v. Webb & Co., 87 S.E. 904, 17 Ga. App. 620, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

On the levy of a common-law fi. fa. upon certain personal property, the holders (who were also the original payees) of a promissory note, which included a reservation of title to the property, interposed a claim, which upon the trial was sustained. The whole contract must be looked to in arriving at the construction of any part. It is apparent, from the face of the contract itself, that the failure to strike the words “Hahira Live Stock Company” and to insert in lieu thereof the name of the payees of the note, actually named in this part of the contract, was an unintentional omission of the scrivener, and this clerical error should not be permitted to defeat the clear intention of the parties. The case is controlled by the decision of this court in Gaulding v. Baker, 9 Ga. App. 578 (71 S. E. 1018). See also eases there cited. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

On the levy of a common-law fi. fa. upon certain personal property, the holders (who were also the original payees) of a promissory note, which included a reservation of title to the property, interposed a claim, which upon the trial was sustained. The whole contract must be looked to in arriving at the construction of any part. It is apparent, from the face of the contract itself, that the failure to strike the words “Hahira Live Stock Company” and to insert in lieu thereof the name of the payees of the note, actually named in this part of the contract, was an unintentional omission of the scrivener, and this clerical error should not be permitted to defeat the clear intention of the parties. The case is controlled by the decision of this court in Gaulding v. Baker, 9 Ga. App. 578 (71 S. E. 1018). See also eases there cited. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 904, 17 Ga. App. 620, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-webb-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack