Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

162 Ga. 358

Smith v. Pharr

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 19, 1926

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1926-06-19

Relies on Woodbery v. Atlas Realty Co. · Coleman v. Cabaniss · Hunt v. New England Mortgage Security Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-06-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 1974

16 state decisions

80192619301940195019601970decided

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 →

Gilbert, J.

¶1Under the pleadings and the evidence the court did not err in denying an injunction. A power of sale may lawfully reside in one who has no legal or equitable interest in the property which is to be the subject of the sale. Coleman v. Cabaniss, 121 Ga. 281 (48 S. E. 927) ; Woodbery v. Atlas Realty Co., 148 Ga. 712, 718 (98 S. E. 472). In this *359case Rharr, the grantee of the payee, retains an equity in the securities, and, under the power granted in the deed from- plaintiff to him, may sell the property, the proceeds being liable to the payment of the debts secured thereby.

No. 5162.June 19, 1926.

¶2(a) This ruling is not in conflict with Hunt v. New England Mortgage Co., 92 Ga. 720 (19 S. E. 27), or Hightower v. Haddock, 153 Ga. 160 (111 S. E. 413). In both of those cases the assignment was absolute and not as security. In the former the deed did not contain a power of sale. In the latter case the deed did contain such power, and the assignment was sufficiently broad to include that power. The questions involved were essentially different.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.W. L. Nix, for plaintiff. O. A. Nix, for defendant.
/162/ga/358 · .json · Public domain