Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Ga. App. 419

Owens v. Bridges

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 9, 1913

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1913-09-09

<p>Trover; from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Spooner. May 26, 1913.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A paper stipulating that tbe maker conveys certain described personalty to secure a debt, and that upon payment of tbe debt tbe creditor will reconvey tbe property to tbe debtor, is a bill of sale to secure a debt, and not a mortgage. The stipulation for a reconveyance of the property is not a defeasance clause, such as a provision that the instrument would be void upon payment of the debt. Upon payment of the debt a reconveyance can be compelled, but until this is done the instrument remains operative as a bill of sale, even though the debt is paid.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including McCurry v. Hartwell Bank

Relies on Holmes v. Langston & Woodson · Williamson v. Orient Insurance · Pitts v. Maier

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1913-09-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 1964

1 district · 12 state decisions

40191319201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pottle, J.

¶11. A paper stipulating that the -maker conveys certain described personalty to secure a debt, and that upon payment of the debt the creditor will reconvey the property to the debtor, is a bill of sale to secure a debt, and not a mortgage. The stipulation for a reconveyance of the property is not a defeasance clause, such as a provision that the instrument would be void upon payment of the debt. Upon payment of the debt a reconveyance can be compelled, but until this is done the instrument remains operative as a bill of sale, even though the debt is .paid. See Bellerby v. Thomas, 105 Ga. 477 (4) (30 S. E. 425); Williamson v. Orient Ins. Co., 100 Ga. 791 (28 S. E. 914); Pitts v. Maier, 115 Ga. 281 (41 S. E. 570); Ellison v. Wilson, 7 Ga. App. 214 (66 S. E. 631).

¶22. “A recorded deed of personal property is entitled to go in evidence without other proof.” Bell v. McCauley, 29 Ga. 355 (2). In Giannone v. Fleetwood, 93 Ga. 491 (21 S. E. 76), the court was dealing with an unrecorded bill of sale.

¶33. The plaintiff having elected to take a money verdict, the measure of his damages could not exceed the principal and interest of his debt, less any sum which had been received by him in part payment, notwithstanding the value of the property exceeded the amount due at the time of the trial. Holmes v. Langston, 110 Ga. 861 (36 S. E. 251). The original debt was $350, with interest from January 21, 1907, at 7 per cent, per annum. The plaintiff testified that on or about September 25, 1910, he had received on the debt $106. Hence the amount due on the date of the verdict, to wit, March 25, 1913, was $381.20. The verdict was for $448. Direction is given that the excess be written off from the verdict and judgment. Judgment affirmed, with direction.

/13/gaapp/419 · .json · Public domain