Legal Opinion

Bingham v. Haines

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 8, 1920No. 11178PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Certiorari; from Chatham superior court —• Judge Meldrim. November 10, 1919.

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

1. A possessory warrant lies only for the recovery of personal property, and not for the recovery of realty. Gainous v. Martin, 10 Ga. App. 210 (72 S. E. 1100).(a) “A crop of corn not detached from the soil, whether mature or immature, is a part of the realty.” Newton County v. Boyd, 148 Ga. 761 (98 S. E. 347), and cit. Shrubbery and flowers planted by a tenant are, when not detached from the soil, realty, and cannot be removed by him, Wright v. DuBignon, 114 Ga. 765, 771 (40 S. E. 747, 57 L. R. A. 669).

2. It follows that a possessory warrant will not lie to recover shrubbery and flowers…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wright v. DuBignonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  2. Newton County v. BoydSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
  3. Chapman v. Silver & BrotherCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
  4. Charles W. Tway Co. v. HedenbergCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
  5. Gainous v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Adcock v. BerrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  2. Murray v. StriblingCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API