Scarboro v. Goethe
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pisrr, P. J.
In an action of trover by a vendor against a vendee, in which the former claimed title based upon a conditional bill of sale, reserving to himself' title to the property sold until the purchase-money should be paid, no demand was necessary where it appeared that the defendant was in possession of the property, claiming title thereto, at the time of the action, his defense being that, owing to payments made and partial failure of consideration, he was due only a small balance of the purchase-money, of which he made tender. Accordingly, it was erroneous, in such a case, to grant a nonsuit upon the ground that no demand was shown to have been made prior to the suit. Civil Code, § 3887; Muse v. Wright, 103 Ga. 783 ; Grant v. Miller, 107 Ga. 804 .
Judgment reversed.
By five Justices.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.