Waring v. Gaskill

22 S.E. 659, 95 Ga. 731
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 8, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 22 S.E. 659 (Waring v. Gaskill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Waring v. Gaskill, 22 S.E. 659, 95 Ga. 731 (Ga. 1895).

Opinion

Lumpkin, Justice.

The material facts are stated by the,reporter.

It was error to strike the defendant’s plea. The sale of the stock pledged as collateral security for the payment of one of the notes in suit, without giving the ten days notice to the defendant as required by the contract, was illegal. Under such circumstances, the sale was neither more nor less than a conversion of the property by the plaintiff, the more especially when he himself became the purchaser at his own sale. This being so, we think it clear that it was the right of the defendant, in his defense to the action brought against him upon this and the other notes, to. plead in recoupment the damages occasioned him by this conversion. In adjusting the account between .the parties, he was entitled to credit for the actual value of his stock at the time it was sold, and if such value exceeded the entire amount of his indebtedness to the plaintiff, he could recover the balance shown to be in his favor. Nor was it essential to the making of this defense that the defendant should have previously demanded a restitution to him of the stock in question, or that he should have tendered pay[734]*734ment of the debt thereby secured. The questions involved in the present case were practically settled by the decision of this court in Van Arsdale v. Joiner, 44 Ga. 173. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

John F. Harrell v. Loice S. Allen and Katie M. Smith
439 F.2d 1005 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
Bromley v. Bromley
127 S.E.2d 836 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Scheuer v. Salmon Weed & Co.
53 F.2d 335 (Second Circuit, 1931)
Bussey v. Holtsizer
152 S.E. 293 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Hornsby v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.
142 S.E. 748 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Tennessee Chemical Co. v. George
131 S.E. 493 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Henry Cotton Mills v. Shoenig & Co.
127 S.E. 238 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Hall v. Vann
123 S.E. 172 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Bennett v. Tucker & Pennington
123 S.E. 165 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Kennedy v. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co.
29 Ga. App. 167 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Stoutt
180 P. 182 (Utah Supreme Court, 1919)
Campbell v. Redwine Bros.
96 S.E. 347 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Park v. Swann
92 S.E. 398 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Turner v. Commercial Savings Bank
87 S.E. 918 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Weaver v. Roberson
67 S.E. 662 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Whigham v. Fountain
63 S.E. 1115 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Smith v. Shippers' Oil Co.
45 So. 533 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)
Austin v. Vanderbilt
85 P. 519 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1906)
Halliday v. Bank of Stewart County
37 S.E. 721 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Harrell v. Citizens Banking Co.
36 S.E. 460 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.E. 659, 95 Ga. 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waring-v-gaskill-ga-1895.