Ryman v. Kennedy

Decision Date09 December 1913
Citation80 S.E. 551,141 Ga. 75
PartiesRYMAN v. KENNEDY et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Good Will (§ 5*)—Nature—Business or Attorney.

It was error to dismiss the petition on demurrer.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Good Will, Cent. Dig. § 2; Dec. Dig. § 5.*]

Error from Superior Court, Ben Hill County; W. F. George, Judge.cused is guilty. Nor is the transaction to be regarded as any the less a sale because the club was unincorporated and simply a mere voluntary association of persons. If 100 people should order a barrel of whisky and each contribute an equal amount and pay for the whisky, the title passes into all of them, and they own the liquor in common. In such a case there would be no objection to a plan of distribution which did not involve the elements of a sale, but, if each of these persons should be allowed to withdraw a drink at the time and pay therefor a price which had been agreed upon by all of them, the transaction would be a sale. It would be a sale because title to the drink had been in all of the persons in common, and when it was transmitted to the individual who paid therefor a price agreed upon, there was a sale by the 99 to the one of all of their interest in the whisky purchased. The infinitesimal interest of the one person in the drink thus obtained would not prevent the transaction from being a sale.

"Tenants in common are such as hold by several and distinct titles but by unity of possession, because none knoweth his own severalty, and therefore they all occupy promiscuously." 2 Black. Com. 191. "Tenants in common are such as have an unity of possession, but distinct and several titles to their shares." Tilton v. Vail, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 638, 640; 8 Wds. & Phrs. Judicially Delined, 69.08. "While the technical expression "tenants in common" applies to owners of realty, still, where several own personalty in common, the character of the ownership is the same; and, while there is unity of possession, they hold under distinct and several titles. If, however, the hundred persons should order a barrel of whisky for their joint use, and upon its arrival should agree upon its distribution in different quantities, each man paying for the portion which he received, an equitable part of the whole cost, the transaction would be lawful, and there would be no sale. We may go one step further and say that it would not be a violation of law to employ a man to make the distribution and pay him for the services thus rendered, provided, of course, all this was done...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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