Huntington v. Chisholm

• Decision Date: 31 August 1878
• Citation: 61 Ga. 270
• Parties: Huntington. v. Chisholm.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

61 Ga. 270

Huntington. v. Chisholm.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(August Term, 1878.)

Vendor and purchaser. Sales. Contracts. Evidence. Before Judge Underwood. Polk Superior Court. February Term, 1878.

To the report contained in the opinion it is only necessary to add, that defendant tendered in evidence proceedings drawn by plaintiff as attorney for the common vendor, to take a homestead including the cotton now in controversy, filed after thealleged sale to him. This evidence was rejected by the court, and this is one of the errors complained *of. The sale forming the basis of controversy was generally of one bale of cotton.,

Ivy F. Thompson; Blance & King, by E. N. Broyles, for plaintiff in error, cited (on validity of sale) 55 Ga., 586; 58 Ib, 574; Code, § 1950; 6 Ga., 554, 562, 563; 20 Ib, 578; 30 Ib 637; 25 Ib, 215; 58 Ib., 63; Code, § 1593.

No appearance for defendant.

Jackson, Justice.

Chisholm sued Huntington for fifteen hundred pounds of cotton, raised by the vendor, another Chisholm, upon his land. The contract of sale to Chisholm was made some time early in the year, and it is uncertain whether the cotton was planted; no particular part of the crop was sold, such as the first 1, 500 pounds gathered from the cotton in a certain field, or otherwise, so as to be identified, and a homestead exemption by which this cotton was set apart to the vendor, prepared by the purchaser, Chisholm, long after the alleged purchase by him, was rejected by the court. Huntington afterwards bought the cotton, and it was delivered to him. The court charged that the oldest title would take, and the jury, of course, found for Chisholm; and Huntington complains of the charge and the verdict, and the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.

1. There can be no sale of an implanted crop, or any part thereof. 55 Ga, 543, 586.

2. The thing sold must be so separated from the mass or described as to be capable of identification. 51 Ga, 553; 55 Ga., 543.

The plaintiff long after the alleged sale to him prepared exemption papers for the vendor, in which the title to the cotton was alleged to be still in his vendor. It was an admission against the validity of his purchase, and ought to have gone to the juryfor what it was worth.

*For these reasons we reverse the judgment, and order a new trial.

Judgment reversed.