Legal Opinion
City of Atlanta v. Lunsford
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided January 29, 1962No. 39321PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Eberhahdt, Judge.
1. No mention of interest is made in Code § 36-603, which is the section applicable here. It simply provides that, in the event the final judgment fixing the amount to be paid for the land taken is less than the amount of the award of the assessors, the condemnee shall be bound to- refund any excess paid to or received by him.
“The law allows interest only because of a contract, express or implied, for its payment, or as damages for the detention-, of money or for breach of some contract, or the violation of some duty. It is very generally stated that interest, being of purely…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railroad v. Knapp-Stout & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Gate City Terminal Co. v. ThrowerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- State Highway Department v. HendrixSupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Threatt v. Forsyth CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
- First National Bank v. State Highway DepartmentSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
- Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. RichSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962
- State v. Pia Star Realty Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
- State Highway Department v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.