Legal Opinion

Sewell v. C. I. T. Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 15, 1931No. 21447PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Young v. DurhamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
  2. Glisson v. Heggie Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  3. Pannell v. McGarityCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  4. Fulghum & Lewis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  5. Cone v. HunterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Woodhull Corp. v. Saibaba Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
  2. Dickerson v. Universal Credit Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
  3. Jackson v. ParksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API