Legal Opinion
Cohn v. Rigsby
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided October 11, 1939No. 27593PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFulton, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
1. “Absolute title is not essential to the maintenance of an action of trover. An interest less than the whole title will be sufficient where it is coupled with lawful possession or an immediate right thereto.” Groover v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co., 186 Ga. 476, 483 (198 S. E. 217), and cit. The rule that the plaintiff can not recover where he relies on title to recover possession, and his evidence shows that a paramount outstanding title is in a third person, does not apply in such a case as this, in which the plaintiff is shown to have such a connection…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gulf Refining Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Groover v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- National-Ben Franklin Fire Insurance v. DarbyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- White v. DotsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Dodson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hoard v. WileyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- State Highway Department v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- FIREMEN'S INSURANCE CO. v. AllmondCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Ward v. NanceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Hill v. KirkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.