Sewell v. C. I. T. Corp.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, C. J.
1. “The rule that the bringing of a suit in trover by a vendor of property who has reserved title thereto in himself until payment of the purchase-price, and Ms election to lake the properly itself, and his recovery of it, amount to a rescission of the contract of purchase, and that there can be no subsequent action for any further recovery, is not applicable to a case where the contract of sale contains a provision that if the note given for the purchase-price of the property is not paid at maturity, the vendor is authorized to repossess himself of the property, to sell it for cash at public…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Young v. DurhamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Glisson v. Heggie Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Pannell v. McGarityCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Fulghum & Lewis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Cone v. HunterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
3Cited by3 opinions
- Woodhull Corp. v. Saibaba Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
- Dickerson v. Universal Credit Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Jackson v. ParksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934