Case Name: EMPIRE COTTON OIL COMPANY v. CONTINENTAL GIN COMPANY
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1917-09-18
Citations: 21 Ga. App. 16
Docket Number: 8262
Parties: EMPIRE COTTON OIL COMPANY v. CONTINENTAL GIN COMPANY.
Judges: Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., coneur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 16–21

Head Matter:
8262.
EMPIRE COTTON OIL COMPANY v. CONTINENTAL GIN COMPANY.
Decided September 18, 1917.
Rehearing denied September 27, 1917.
Trover; from Eulton superior court — Judge Bell. May 6, 19-16.
In June, 1910, the Continental Gin Company sold to J. C. and James Council certain machinery, taking purchase-money notes containing the following provisions: “This note given in part payment for the following machinery sold to the undersigned by Continental Gin Company, viz.: 3 70 saw R. H. Winship plain gins; 3 70 saw class C feeders; 1 210 saw condenser with support and flues, 1 20 saw lint flue; 1 30 inch cylinder D. B. steam power press with transfer and feedings; 1 10 inch class C elevator, as per contract; shafting, pulleys, and belting as per contract. It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the holder and maker of this note that the title and ownership of-said machinery for which this note is given shall remain in the said Continental Gin Company or owner of this note, until this note and all other installment notes, or any renewals thereof, shall be paid in full.” The notes were indorsed by the McRae Oil & Fertilizer Company. The makers were residents of Telfair county, and the notes were there recorded. J. C. and James Council kept and operated the ginning outfit during the' season of 1910-11 on premises in Telfair county owned by the McRae Oil & Fertilizer Company. After the close of the season that company, without' authority of the Councils, took possession of the ginning outfit, and subsequently sold the “land upon which the gin machinery in litigation was located” to the Telfair Fertilizer Company, conveying it by deed dated January 10, 1912. The latter company conveyed the land to the Empire Cotton Oil Company hy a deed dated June 22, 1912, in which was included: “all other property, both real and personal, which the party of the first part owns, of every character whatsoever, and wherever the same may be situated, used in connection with or belonging to the oil and fertilizer business or ginneries of the party of the first part, except its-cash, notes and accounts receivable and other choses in action, the raw material, manufactured products, and supplies on hand, not used in the operation of said oil and, fertilizer or other plants.” The Continental Gin Company brought suit in trover against the Empire Cotton Oil Company for the machinery, and recovered therein, and the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and it excepted. The only ground of the motion besides the general grounds, that the verdict is contrary to law and to the evidence, etc., was the ground that the court erred in admitting in evidence the purchase-money notes containing the reservation of title, for the reason that “they did' not state the locality of nor upon whose land said machinery was located,, whether in Telfair county or elsewhere; that the description of the machinery as set out in the notes was insufficient to describe the machinery, and insufficient to put any one on notice of plaintiff’s claim thereto; and that the notes do not specify the residence of Messrs. J. C. and James Council, the makers of the notes or contracts.”

Opinion:
Jenkins, J.
Whether or not the defendant occupied the position of a bona fide purchaser, a duly recorded purchase-money note reserving title to personal property described as follows: "The following machinery sold to the undersigned by Continental Gin Company, viz.: 3 70 saw R. H. Winship plain gins; 3 70 saw class C feeders; 1 210 saw condenser with support and flues; 1 20 saw lint flue; 1 30 inch cylinder D. B. steam power press with transfer and feedings; 1 10 inch class C elevator as per contract; shafting, pulleys, and belting as per contract," was sufficient to afford record notice to third persons of the fact that the title to the property was in the vendor, it also appearing that, following the contract of sale, the vendees took possession of the property, and that it remained in their hands and was operated by them for an entire ginning season. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Furniture Co., 120 Ca. 879 (2) (48 S. E. 333); Charles v. Valdosta Foundry &c. Co., 4 Ga. App. 733 (62 S. E. 493). There is no provision 'of law requiring that such an instrument shall state the locality of the machinery or upon whose land it is located, nor need it specify the county of residence of the maker. The 'law requires that the contract shall be executed and attested in the same manner as mortgages on personal property, and recorded within thirty days from its date, in the county where the vendee resides, if a resident of this State, and provides that in other respects it shall be governed by the laws relating to the registration of mortgages. Civil Code (1910), § 3318, 3319, 3307, 3257.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., coneur.
King & Spalding, Anderson & Rountree, for plaintiff in error.
R. L. J. & S. J. Smith, F. M. & G. F. Mitchell, contra.