Paradies & Rich v. Warren Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. It is well settled tliat tlie rule requiring that a mortgage or conditional bill of sale shall specify the property on which it is to take effect does not require that the description shall serve to identify it without the aid of parol evidence, where the instrument indicates within itself some method by which the description, with the aid of extrinsic evidence, can be defined and limited. Stevens Hardware Co. v. Bank of Byromville, 34 Ga. App. 268 (2) (129 S. E. 172), and cit. Thus, where an instrument, although describing articles mortgaged or conditionally sold too generally to identify…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- A. S. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Nichols v. HamptonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872
- Smith v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- Stevens Hardware Co. v. Bank of ByromvilleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Pinson-Brunson Motor Co. v. Bank of DanielsvilleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Garland v. State of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Yancey Brothers Co. v. Dehco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Trammell v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
- TRUSCO FINANCE COMPANY v. ChildsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Butler v. ScarboroCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.