Long Cigar & Grocery Co. v. Harvey
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
The provisions of sections 3226 to 3229 inclusive of the Civil Code (1910), known as the “bulk-sales act,” being in derogation of the common law and of the right to alienate property without restriction, must be strictly construed. Yancey v. Lamar-Rankin Drug Co., 140 Ga. 359 (3) (78 S. E. 1078); Cooney v. Sweat, 133 Ga. 511, 512 (1) (66 S. E. 257); Bank of LaGrange v. Rutland, 27 Ga. App. 442 (2). In some jurisdictions, by the -terms of the bulk-sales statute, a sale of “any portion” of a stock of merchandise otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade is covered by the provisions of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. EvansSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Steele v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Southern Bank v. GoetteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Cooney, Eckstein & Co. v. SweatSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Rome Railroad v. BarnettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Jackson's Mill & Lumber Co. v. HollidayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Hawthorne v. PopeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Henry v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Taylor v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- McCoy v. Romy Hammes CorporationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.