Legal Opinion
Moore v. Wells
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided June 11, 1956No. 19287PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Head, Justice.
Primarily, the rights of the parties in the present case are controlled by the conveyance to the school district. A construction of this conveyance is essential to a determination of the cause. “In the construction of deeds, as well as other contracts, the paramount, essential, and controlling rule is to ascertain the intention of the parties. If that intention is plain from the language of the deed as a whole, and the intention contravenes no rule of law, it should be given effect . . .” Keith v. Chastain, 157 Ga. 1 (1) (121 S. E. 233); Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Barnes, 148 Ga.…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Krueger v. MacDougaldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
- Jones v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Atlanta Consolidated Street Railway Co. v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Anderson v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Beecher v. CarterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hardman v. Dahlonega-Lumpkin County Chamber of CommerceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Walton v. City of Red BluffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Atlanta Development Authority v. Clark Atlanta University, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 2016
- State Highway Department v. Hewitt Contracting Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- International Indemnity Co. v. McKeeverCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.