Legal Opinion

Roddenberry v. Fouche

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 8, 1920No. 11263PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Trover; from city court of Brunswick — Judge Krauss. December 20, 1919.

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

1. Although a mortgage is not sufficient to sustain an action of trover (Civil Code, § 3256; Horton v. Murden, 117 Ga. 72, 43 S. E. 786), the instrument which is the basis of this trover suit was in all respects in the form of a bill of sale reserving title to the personalty sold, and cannot properly be treated as a mortgage merely because it contains the following clause: “ As soon as the said first party shall pay or cause to be paid all of the aforesaid notes as they become due, then and in that event title to the said Eord automobile car shall become hers, and the said party of the second…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Horton v. MurdenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  2. A. S. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. Nichols v. HamptonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872
  4. Reynolds v. Tifton Guano Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  5. Beaty v. SearsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Winter Bros. v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API