Woods v. McCall

67 Ga. 506
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 15, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 67 Ga. 506 (Woods v. McCall) 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
Woods v. McCall, 67 Ga. 506 (Ga. 1880).

Opinion

Jackson, Chief Justice.

1. Two questions are made in this record and insisted on here. The first is that trover cannot be brought to recover a cotton screw, because it is a permanent fixture.But the reply is that the defendant had detached it from the plaintiff’s realty and moved and affixed it to his own. When he detached it, it became that thing for which trover would lie, and the conversion was complete at that moment and the right of action then arose, and this right could not be defeated by the defendant’s fastening this chattel to his own real estate.

2. The other point is that the court erred in ruling that, if title was in plaintiff he could recover the value of the screw with the value of its use or hire.added, plaintiff in error insisting that the only measure of damages is value' with interest instead of hire. The Code settles'the point.Section 3057 enacts that if defendant will make tender of property with reasonable hire, at the first term, he may' escape costs, and section 3564, declares that plaintiff may-have “ a verdict for the damages alone, or the property alone, and its hire, if any.”

This is our law, and we need not’look elsewhere. It originated in the times when slaves and their hire were, subject matters of constant and important litigation, and the principle is still in our statute- book. It is applicable to this case. The true measure, the just measure, of5 plaintiff’s damages is the value of this screw with reason-5 ble addition for its hire or use. That is precisely what he lost by the wrongful conversion of defendant.

The point in respect to the competency of the witness' McCall, was not argued and is not insisted upon.

Judgment affirmed,

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

Related

Insilco Corp. v. Carter
265 S.E.2d 794 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Household Finance Corp. v. Pugmire Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.
181 S.E.2d 292 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Schrampfer v. Lindal Cedar Homes of Georgia, Inc.
162 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Burpee v. Athens Production Credit Asso.
15 S.E.2d 526 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Wilson-Weesner-Wilkinson Co. v. Collier
8 S.E.2d 171 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Adams v. Chamberlin
188 S.E. 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Broadway Apartment Co. v. Barnett
118 S.E. 601 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Kennedy v. Smith
99 S.E. 27 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
Knight v. Northey
93 S.E. 535 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Camp v. Horton
63 S.E. 351 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
O'Neill Manufacturing Co. v. Woodley
44 S.E. 980 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Jaques v. Stewart
6 S.E. 815 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1888)
Ezzard v. Frick & Co.
76 Ga. 512 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 Ga. 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-mccall-ga-1880.