Court Opinion

ID: 9604369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:20:31.016417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:21.731698
License: Public Domain

*77Townsend, J.,
concurring specially. I concur in the judgment in this case for the additional reason stated in Hodges v. Cummings, 115 Ga. 1000, 1001 (42 S. E. 394) as follows: “When the law authorizes a seller to rescind the sale, he may demand of the buyer the possession of the property, and a surrender of the property in compliance with such demand will release the buyer from the obligation imposed upon him by the contract of sale; but when such a demand is made and the buyer refuses to deliver the property, such refusal constitutes a conversion, and the seller may bring an action for the recovery of the property, in the nature of an action of trover; and when this is done, the seller is entitled to all the rights which a plaintiff in such an action is entitled to under the statute of this State, and one of these is a right to take a verdict for damages alone, if he sees proper.” If a trover action were maintainable merely because of a default in payment, this would deprive the defendant of a right which he has in law (and also under the terms of many retention-title contracts) to allow the seller to repossess the article itself, before suit, and thus to avoid liability for a money judgment in the event the plaintiff desires to elect such judgment.