Legal Opinion

Morris & Eckels Co. v. Fulton National Bank

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 9, 1951No. 17516PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

A mortgage must specify the property upon which it is to take effect. Code, § 67-102. And the words “to specify” have been described in Stewart v. Jaques, 77 Ga. 365 (3 S. E. 283) as meaning “to point out, to particularize, to designate by words one thing from another.” While the law does not require such a description as will identify the property without the aid of parol evidence, yet the words of such description—although sufficient to create a lien—may be insufficient, through the recording of the mortgage, to impart notice to third parties. Stewart v. Jaques,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Doyal v. RussellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  2. A. S. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. TapleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
  4. Baggett v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  5. Bennett v. GreenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hames v. City of MariettaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1956
  2. Rouse v. O'ConnellNew York Supreme Court · 1974
  3. TRUSCO FINANCE COMPANY v. ChildsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
  4. Goforth v. ScogginsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API