Dyson v. Washington Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
Should the demurrer have been sustained on the ground that the property sought to be recovered was realty for which an actioD of trover would not lie ? The suit is for the recovery of “certain telephone sets, open wire, cross-arms, brackets, anchors, transportation brackets, poles, telephone equipment, supplies, tools and instruments, switch-boards, and other property” of the plaintiff. None *78of these articles per se are realty. On the contrary they are, standing alone, personalty. But in the petition it is alleged that these articles are fully described in…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hecht v. Snook & Austin Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Harden v. LangSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Munnerlyn v. Augusta Savings BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Malsby & Avery v. YoungSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Lowe v. BurkeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Blaylock v. HackelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Arteaga v. ArteagaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Georgia Casualty Co. v. McRitchieCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Wellborn v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
- Hill v. McCandlessSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.