Wiggins v. Tumlin

23 S.E. 75, 96 Ga. 753
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 1, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 23 S.E. 75 (Wiggins v. Tumlin) 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
Wiggins v. Tumlin, 23 S.E. 75, 96 Ga. 753 (Ga. 1895).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where the owner of personal property delivered the same to another on trial and for use, with the understanding that if the property suited the latter, the parties would close a trade for the sale thereof and that papers for this purpose should then be executed, there being no limit as to the length of time during which the property might be kept on trial, and no binding obligation to purchase upon the party receiving it, this was a mere bailment of the property and not a sale; and if afterwards the party so receiving the property decided to purchase it, and accordingly executed a note for the purchase money secured by mortgage, the title did not pass to the purchaser until the contract of sale was thus made and completed.

.■2. The lien of a mortgage on personalty given contemporaneously with the sale thereof to secure the purchase money, is of superior dignity to that of a judgment rendered against the mortgagor prior to the purchase and the giving of the mortgage for the purpose stated; and if after the maturity of the purchase money debt thus secured, the mortgagor, without requiring a foreclosure of the mortgage, in good faith and without fraud of any kind, returns the mortgaged property to his creditor in satisfaction of the mortgage debt, the fair value of the property not then being greater in amount than the purchase money thus paid, the property in question is not, either in the hands of the mortgagee or of his subsequent vendee, subject to an execution founded on the judgment above mentioned. Judgment reversed.

C. N. Featherston and J. Glenn, for plaintiff in error. Hoskinson & Harris, contra.

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

Related

Matter of Mae Disorda Savage
22 A.2d 153 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1941)
Solomon v. Dunlap-Huckabee Auto Co.
164 S.E. 185 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Ritchie & Wells v. Irvin
139 S.E. 910 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Nagle Engine & Boiler Works v. M. Mitshkun Co.
207 N.W. 829 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1926)
Kidd v. Kidd
124 S.E. 45 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
U. S. Supply Co. v. Andrews
1918 OK 168 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Stambaugh v. Cantwell Hardware Co.
23 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 297 (Hardin County Court of Common Pleas, 1917)
Read Phosphate Co. v. Brooks
89 S.E. 528 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Walton v. Shakespear
88 S.E. 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
In re Thomas
231 F. 513 (S.D. Georgia, 1916)
Luke v. Cason
66 S.E. 493 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Furst Bros. v. Commercial Bank
43 S.E. 728 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Evans v. Napier, Worsham & Co.
36 S.E. 426 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Harp v. Patapsco Guano Co.
27 S.E. 181 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 S.E. 75, 96 Ga. 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiggins-v-tumlin-ga-1895.