Hale v. Hale
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Trover; from city court of Monroe — Judge Stone. August 16, 1921.
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. “ As a general rule, trover will not lie in favor of a tenant in common against liis cotenant.” Hall v. Page, 4 Ga. 428; King v. Neel, 98 Ga. 438, 441 (25 S. E. 513, 58 Am. St. R. 311); Starnes v. Quin, 6 Ga. 84 (3). The instant action, brought by the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband against the brother of the decedent for the recovery of five bales of cotton, does not fall within either of the recognized exceptions to this rule. The uncontroverted evidence showing that four of the bales, marked and identified, represented rent from land paid to the decedent and the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Eastlick v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Kemp v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Hall v. PageSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- King v. NeelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- Miller & Co. v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- English v. PooleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Acme Fast Freight Inc. v. Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
- Eatonton Oil & Auto Co. v. Greene CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Adams v. PaffordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
- Slater v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.