Henry Levis & Co v. Parrott Lumber Co

Decision Date13 February 1904
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court
PartiesHENRY LEVIS & CO. v. PARROTT LUMBER CO.

DEED—CONSTRUCTION—RESERVATIONS.

1. Where A. grants to B. the sawmill and turpentine privileges on a given lot of land, but also provides that "all timber remaining [thereon] to revert" to A. after a period named, and afterwards, before the period expires, conveys the lot to C, with this provision following the description of the land, "all timber on above [land] sold prior to this day reserved, " the trees not removed by B. within the time limited will be the property of A., and not of C.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Dooly County: Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

Action by Henry Levis & Co. against the Parrott Lumber Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

J. L. Bankston and Hal Lawson, for plaintiffs in error.

Whipple & McKenzie, for defendant in error.

TURNER, J. Henry Levis & Co. sued the Parrott Lumber Company, making the following case: On February 29, 1892, the Americus Investment Company conveyed to the plaintiffs certain tracts of land, including lot No. 166 in the Fifth district of Wilcox county. Previously, on June 30, 1890, the Americus Investment Company executed and delivered to J. C. Ausley and G. W. Parrott, as trustees for Ausley and McCaskill & Parrott Lumber Company, a certain writing, which will be hereinafter described. Under this last-mentioned writing, all right of said trustees expired on June 30, 1898. Said conveyance to the plaintiffs and said writing were attached as exhibits to the plaintiffs' petition. From these exhibits it appears that the deed to the plaintiffs conveyed certain lots of land, among them the lot already mentioned, in fee simple; the description of the lands conveyed being followed by these words: "All timber on above lots sold prior to this day reserved." The writing made by the Americus Investment Company to Ausley and Parrott, trustees, after stating the consideration, recited that "the above is consideration given by J. C. Ausley and G. W. Parrott, trustees, for sawmill and turpentine privileges for the space of (8) eight years from date on lots" described, including lot No. 166 "in the fifth district, Wilcox county. The said trustees are hereby given, free of charge, permission to run tramroads through above-named lots, all timber remaining on above lots to revert back to this company at eight years; the title to above premises being hereby warranted." The plaintiffs further averred that, after the expiration of the period of eight years mentioned in the deed made to Ausley and Parrott as trustees, the Parrott Lumber Company "cut out and removed the pine trees suitable for sawmill purposes from said lot of land, " the value of the timber so cut and removed being $ 800; that said pine trees were manufactured into lumber by the defendant company, the value of this lumber being $2,500; and that "said cutting and removal of said timber by defendant was without the consent of plaintiffs." The plaintiffs prayed judgment against the defendant for the value of the lumber so manufactured. To this petition the Parrott Lumber Company filed a demurrer based on the grounds (1) that the facts set forth in the petition did not authorize a recovery for the value of the manufactured lumber; (2) that the petition disclosed that the timber on lot No. 166 "was never sold to Henry Levis & Co., but was reserved by the Americus Investment Co., the petition also showing that the same had been sold by the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Smith v. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 28 Mayo 1928
    ...on this court's docket and Wheat v. J. J. White Lumber Co., No. 26998. By reading the opinions in the two Georgia cases cited, Levis v. Parrott Lbr. Co., supra, and Sutton v. Lbr. Co., 60 S.E. 2, it seems to us that the distinction between the two cases is a very labored one unless we place......
  • Smith v. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 28 Mayo 1928
    ...on which the timber was situated. The timber itself was absolutely reserved without any sort of condition. We do not think that the case of Levis v. Parrott Company, decided in the year 1904, is any authority on which the appellants may rely. That case construed a deed to land on which the ......
  • Henry Levis & Co. v. Parrott Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 1904

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT