McMullen v. Bank, 51 S.E. 342 (Ga. 1905). · Go Syfert
Search
McMullen v. Bank, 51 S.E. 342 (Ga. 1905). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
102 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: smith/burns LLC v. 905 Bernina Avenue Cooperative, Inc. (gactapp, 2017-06-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1905 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1905 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) smith/burns LLC v. 905 Bernina Avenue Cooperative, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
See also Power v. Garrison, 141 Ga. 429, 434 ( 81 SE 225 ) (1914); Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 402 ( 51 SE 335 ) (1905).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oliver v. Dickerson Supply Co.
Ga. · 1965 · confidence medium
Where as in the present case the petition alleges that certain fixtures were attached to the realty conveyed in a certain security deed and were covered by the security deed, the allegations are not demurrable (Domin v. Brush, 174 Ga. 32 (1) ( 161 SE 809 ), Cunningham v. Cureton, 96 Ga. 489 (4) ( 23 SE 420 ), Wright v. DuBignon, 114 Ga. 765 ( 40 SE 747 , 57 LRA 669), Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 403 ( 51 SE 335 ), and Brigham v. Overstreet, 128 Ga. 447 ( 57 SE 484 , 10 LRA (NS) 452, 11 AC 75)), and it is not necessary that the deed be set forth in the petition or attached as an exhibit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Georgia v. Dyson (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1954 · confidence medium
"Whether an article of personalty connected with or attached to realty becomes a part of the realty, and therefore such a fixture that it can not be removed therefrom, depends upon the circumstances under which the article was placed upon the realty, the uses to which it is adapted, and the parties who are at issue as to whether such an article is realty or detachable personalty." Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 402 ( 51 S. E. 335 ); Consolidated Warehouse Co. v. Smith, 55 Ga. App. 216 ( 189 S. E. 724 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Slater v. Dowd
Ga. Ct. App. · 1949 · confidence medium
“As between grantor and grantee, the strict rule of the common law obtains, and the general rule, in the absence of any agreement between the parties to the contrary, undoubtedly is that all fixtures, whether actually or constructively annexed to the realty, pass by a conveyance of the freehold.” Bronson- on Fixtures, 245, § 44, cited in Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 402 ( 51 S. E. 335 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burpee v. Athens Production Credit Asso.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1941 · confidence medium
Walter, 71 Ga. 287, 290 , and Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 402 ( 51 S. E. 335 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Consolidated Warehouse Co. v. Smith
Ga. Ct. App. · 1937 · confidence medium
In Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 402 ( 51 S. E. 335 ), it was held: “ Whether an article of personalty connected with or attached to realty becomes a part of the realty, and therefore such a fixture that it can not be removed therefrom, depends upon the circumstances under which the article was placed upon the realty, the uses to which it is adapted, and the parties who are at issue as to whether such an article is realty or detachable personalty.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Adams v. Chamberlin
Ga. Ct. App. · 1936 · confidence medium
Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 403 ( 51 S. E. 335 ); Bronson on Fixtures, 139. § 28 (9).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sawyer v. Foremost Dairy Products Inc.
Ga. · 1934 · confidence medium
Wade v. Johnston, 25 Ga. 331 ; Harrell v. Americas Refrigerating Co., 92 Ga. 443 ( 17 S. E. 623 ); Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 402 ( 51 S. E. 335 ); Power v. Garrison, 141 Ga. 429, 434 ( 81 S. E. 225 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Tifton Corporation v. Decatur Federal Savings & Loan Association
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400, 402 ( 51 SE 335 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McMullen
v.
Citizens Bank
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jun 16, 1905.
51 S.E. 342
E. L. Bryan and W. C. McCall, for plaintiffs., Humphreys & Humphreys, for defendant.
Itish.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
ITish, P. J.

1. “ In all applications for a new trial the opposite party shall he served with a copy of the rule nisi, unless such copy is waived.” Civil Code, § 5475; Smedley v. Williams, 112 Ga. 114.

2. Such service is essential though the application is to be heard''during the term at which the trial is had. The intimation to the contrary hi Baldwin v. Daniel, 69 Ga. 782, disapproved.

3. Where a rule nisi was granted on a motion for a new trial and ordered served, and the motion set to be heard at an adjourned term of the court at which it was made, to be held more than eighty days after the date of the rule, the court did not, at least, abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion for want of service, there being no excuse for failure of service, nor any evidence of waiver.

Judgment affirmed.

-All the Justices concur, except Simmons, O. J., absent.