Legal Opinion

Bank of Cumming v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 20, 1980No. 35221PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

This certiorari 1 was granted to review the Court of Appeals reliance upon Yancey Bros. Co. v. Dehco, Inc., 108 Ga. App. 875, 877 (2) (b) (134 SE2d 828) (1964), cert. den., which states, "The question of the sufficiency of the description in a recorded instrument to impart constructive notice is for the jury except in clear cases.” We conclude that the statement is not incorrect but may be subject to misinterpretation because it does not clearly delineate between the sufficiency of the description and the identity of the property. In our opinion the distinction…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. A. S. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Farkas v. DuncanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
  3. Yancey Brothers Co. v. Dehco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  4. First National Bank v. SpicerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
  5. Reynolds v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Wisener v. GulledgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
  2. Kubota Tractor Corp. v. Citizens & Southern National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
  3. Murdock v. WardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996
  4. Roberts v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  5. McCann v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985

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

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

Powered by the Exa API