Terrell v. Stevenson Et Ux
| Decision Date | 02 December 1895 |
| Citation | 97 Ga. 570,25 S.E. 352 |
| Parties | TERRELL. v. STEVENSON et ux. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Bale—Warranty of Title—Action for Breach —Parties.
1. Although a plaintiff having a right of action against another may sue for the use of any person whom he may designate to take the proceeds of the action, a plaintiff having no right of action at all cannot recover either for his own benefit or for the use of any one else.
2. A covenant of warranty of title in a bill of sale to personalty is not broken, so as to authorize an action against the vendor by the vendee, merely because a third person, to whom the vendee mortgaged the property, and who had purchased the same at a sale had upon a foreclosure of the mortgage, has been deprived of the property by a seizure and sale thereof under a judgment against the original vendor, of older date than the bill of sale. If, by reason of the facts recited, the purchaser at the mortgage sale acquired any right of action at all against the mortgagor, the mere existence of such right, with no attempt to enforce it, could not, of course, result in any injury to the latter; and in no event could he be legally held to have been damaged by his vendor's alleged breach of warranty before the establishment, by a judgment against him, of liability on his part to the mortgagee.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Atlanta; T. P. Westmoreland, Judge.
Action by W. H. Terrell, for the-use of Grabfelder & Co., against Robert Stevenson and wife. There was a verdict for plaintiff, which was set aside, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Simmons & Corrigan, for plaintiff in error.
Clinton Gowdy and H. M. Patty, for defendants in error.
The material facts of the present case are as follows: Stevenson and his wife, by a warranty bill of sale, conveyed certain personalty to Terrell, a part of the consideration therefor being an agreement on the part of Terrell to assume a debt due by Stevenson and wife to Grabfelder & Co. At the time this bill of sale was executed, the property was subject to the lien of certain justice's court judgments in favor of Shehan, of which fact Terrell appears to have been ignorant. Terrell gave Grabfelder & Co. a mortgage on the property, to secure the debt he had assumed, and, failing to pay it at maturity, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the property was sold by the sheriff under the mortgage fi. fa,; Grabfelder & Co. becoming the purchasers, at the price of $200. Shehan then had the property sold under his fi. fas. against Stevenson and wife, and thus ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carr v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc.
...S.E.2d 881. 'The rule of law that no person can bring an action until he has been actually damaged is applicable here.' Terrell v. Stevenson, 97 Ga. 570, 572, 25 S.E. 352. 4. The proof falls short of showing a breach of implied warranty even if one were not excluded by the express warranty.......
-
United States Lines, Inc. v. United States
...the subcontractor was founded on the theory of implied indemnity. The Court of Appeals said that it did not regard Terrell v. Stevenson, 97 Ga. 570, 572, 25 S.E. 352 as meaning that "a judgment fixing legal liability is an absolute condition precedent where a contract of indemnity is involv......
-
Equitable Fire Ins. Co v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co
...of action in the party bringing the suit." State of Georgia v. Bank of Quitman, 117 Ga. 849, 45 S. E. 236. See, also, Terrell v. Stevenson, 97 Ga. 570, 25 S. E. 352 (1). The rulings in N. W. National Insurance Co. v. Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer Co., supra, must be considered in t......
-
Ross v. Glover-ball Co, (No. 3585.)
...assignee. To maintain a suit for the use of another, there must be a legal right of action in the party bringing it. Terrell v. Stevenson, 97 Ga. 570, 25 S. E. 352; Mitchell v. Georgia & Alabama Ry., 111 Ga. 760, 36 S. E. 971, 51 L. R. A. 622; Norwich Union Fire Ins. Society v. Well-house, ......