homestead waiver (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

homestead waiver in Georgia

12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1896–1960 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Rosenthal v. Langleygreen
ga · 1935 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
2 sentences

1960Code § 51-1101; Rosenthal v. Langley, 180 Ga. 253, 264 ( 179 S. E. 383 , 100 A. L.

1960Code § 51-1101; Rosenthal v. Langley, 180 Ga. 253, 264 ( 179 S. E. 383 , 100 A. L.

11
Reese v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1925 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959See the case of Dickens v. Breedlove, 34 Ga. App. 459 ( 129 S. E. 886 ), relied upon by the. plaintiff, holding that money may not be set aside, in which case it clearly appears that the judgment was predicated on a suit on a promissory note containing a homestead waiver, against which this exemption was not good.

1959See the case of Dickens v. Breedlove, 34 Ga. App. 459 ( 129 S. E. 886 ), relied upon by the plaintiff, holding that money may not be set aside, in which case it clearly appears that the judgment was predicated on a suit on a promissory note containing a homestead waiver, against which this exemption was not good.

11
Dickens v. Breedlovegreen
gactapp · 1925 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959See the case of Dickens v. Breedlove, 34 Ga. App. 459 ( 129 S. E. 886 ), relied upon by the. plaintiff, holding that money may not be set aside, in which case it clearly appears that the judgment was predicated on a suit on a promissory note containing a homestead waiver, against which this exemption was not good.

1959See the case of Dickens v. Breedlove, 34 Ga. App. 459 ( 129 S. E. 886 ), relied upon by the plaintiff, holding that money may not be set aside, in which case it clearly appears that the judgment was predicated on a suit on a promissory note containing a homestead waiver, against which this exemption was not good.

11
Stubbs v. McConnellgreen
ga · 1903 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1923–1923
2 sentences

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (31)

CaseCitedYears
Ragan, Malone & Co. v. Taff neutral
ga · 1910
2 sentences

1942In Frank v. Weiner, 167 Ga. 892 ( 147 S. E. 51 ), it was held: “If a customer who is indebted to a merchant on an open account makes a written financial statement to the merchant, which expresses a waiver of homestead exemption relatively to his present indebtedness and to any future indebtedness that may be incurred on account of subsequent purchases of goods, but does not at the time agree to make purchases, and the merchant does not at the time bind himself to extend future credit, the homestead waiver expressed in the statement will not be contemporaneous with a subsequent contract of purc

1942In Frank v. Weiner, 167 Ga. 892 ( 147 S. E. 51 ), it was held: “If a customer who is indebted to a merchant on an open account makes a written financial statement to the merchant, which expresses a waiver of homestead exemption relatively to his present indebtedness and to any future indebtedness that may be incurred on account of subsequent purchases of goods, but does not at the time agree to make purchases, and the merchant does not at the time bind himself to extend future credit, the homestead waiver expressed in the statement will not be contemporaneous with a subsequent contract of purc

31929–1942
Frank & Co. v. Weiner neutral
ga · 1929
2 sentences

1942In Frank v. Weiner, 167 Ga. 892 ( 147 S. E. 51 ), it was held: “If a customer who is indebted to a merchant on an open account makes a written financial statement to the merchant, which expresses a waiver of homestead exemption relatively to his present indebtedness and to any future indebtedness that may be incurred on account of subsequent purchases of goods, but does not at the time agree to make purchases, and the merchant does not at the time bind himself to extend future credit, the homestead waiver expressed in the statement will not be contemporaneous with a subsequent contract of purc

1942In Frank v. Weiner, 167 Ga. 892 ( 147 S. E. 51 ), it was held: “If a customer who is indebted to a merchant on an open account makes a written financial statement to the merchant, which expresses a waiver of homestead exemption relatively to his present indebtedness and to any future indebtedness that may be incurred on account of subsequent purchases of goods, but does not at the time agree to make purchases, and the merchant does not at the time bind himself to extend future credit, the homestead waiver expressed in the statement will not be contemporaneous with a subsequent contract of purc

21931–1942
Brice v. Lane green
ga · 1892
2 sentences

1897Tie simply had the option to make the payment and to get his deed back if he did make it.” Again in the case of Brice v. Lane, 90 Ga. 294 , it was 'ruled that the instrument there under review, although on its face it purported to secure a debt, and notwithstanding the promise to pay such debt appearing in the same instrument which contained a homestead waiver, amounted to a conveyance of the title.

1896Brice v. Lane, adm’r, 90 Ga. 294 .

21896–1897
McKenney v. Cheney green
ga · 1903
1 sentence

1960Lyle v. Roswell Store, Inc., 187 Ga. 386 (1b), supra; McKenney v. Cheney, 118 Ga. 387 ( 45 S. E. 433 ). 4.

11960–1960
Templeton v. Hannah green
ga · 1903
1 sentence

1960Lyle v. Roswell Store, Inc., 187 Ga. 386 (1b), supra; McKenney v. Cheney, 118 Ga. 387 ( 45 S. E. 433 ). 4.

11960–1960
Lyle v. Roswell Store Inc. neutral
ga · 1938
1 sentence

1960Lyle v. Roswell Store, Inc., 187 Ga. 386 (1b), supra; McKenney v. Cheney, 118 Ga. 387 ( 45 S. E. 433 ). 4.

11960–1960
Henley v. Colonial Stages South Inc. green
gactapp · 1937
2 sentences

1959There is nothing to the contrary of what I am holding here in the case sub judice in Henley v. Colonial Stages South, 56 Ga. App. 722 ( 193 S. E. 905 ), nor in McLean v. G.

1959There is nothing to the contrary of what I am holding here in the case sub judice in Henley v. Colonial Stages South, 56 Ga. App. 722 ( 193 S. E. 905 ), nor in McLean v. G.

11959–1959
Pincus v. Meinhard & Brother green
ga · 1913
2 sentences

1929The goods were sold six months thereafter on open account, and we do not think the homestead waiver in the statement prepared for credit barred the retail merchant from applying for a-homestead as against debts subsequently contracted.” In Pincus v. Meinhard, 139 Ga. 365 ( 77 S. E. 82 ), on different facts a different result was reached, but the prieiple above announced was recognized.

1929The goods were sold six months thereafter on open account, and we do not think the homestead waiver in the statement prepared for credit barred the retail merchant from applying for a-homestead as against debts subsequently contracted.” In Pincus v. Meinhard, 139 Ga. 365 ( 77 S. E. 82 ), on different facts a different result was reached, but the prieiple above announced was recognized.

11929–1929
Jones v. Brandon neutral
ga · 1873
1 sentence

1924In the case of Jones v. Brandon, 48 Ga. 593 , this court held, that, “Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Gunn v. Barry, the homestead clause of the Constitution of 1868 is in violation of the constitution of the United States in so far as it authorizes the homestead and exemption therein provided for to be set up against contracts made before the adoption of said constitution of 1868.” In delivering the opinion of the court Judge McCay said: “It is true that the decision [Gunn v. Barry, 82 U. S. 610 , 21 L. ed. 212] alluded to does say that the effect

11924–1924
Bush v. Lester neutral
ga · 1876
1 sentence

1924The right of the Supreme Court to pass upon the question at all depends entirely upon the supposed antagonism between the homestead law and that clause of the constitution of the United States which declares that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” In Gunn v. Barry, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States had held, prior to the decision in the Jones case, supra: “That, as respected a creditor who had obtained by his judgment a lien on the land which the old exemption secured to him while the new one destroyed it, the law creating the new exemption impaired

11924–1924
Gunn v. Barry green
scotus · 1873
2 sentences

1924In the case of Jones v. Brandon, 48 Ga. 593 , this court held, that, “Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Gunn v. Barry, the homestead clause of the Constitution of 1868 is in violation of the constitution of the United States in so far as it authorizes the homestead and exemption therein provided for to be set up against contracts made before the adoption of said constitution of 1868.” In delivering the opinion of the court Judge McCay said: “It is true that the decision [Gunn v. Barry, 82 U. S. 610 , 21 L. ed. 212] alluded to does say that the effect

1924The right of the Supreme Court to pass upon the question at all depends entirely upon the supposed antagonism between the homestead law and that clause of the constitution of the United States which declares that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” In Gunn v. Barry, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States had held, prior to the decision in the Jones case, supra: “That, as respected a creditor who had obtained by his judgment a lien on the land which the old exemption secured to him while the new one destroyed it, the law creating the new exemption impaired

11924–1924
Lynah v. Citizens & Southern Bank green
ga · 1912
1 sentence

1924R. 164 )]; Richards v. Shields, 138 Ga. 583 ( 75 S. E. 602 ); Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green, 149 Ga. 610 ( 101 S. E. 538 ).” Joyner v. Bank of Menlo, supra. A homestead waiver in a note, upon which judgment is obtained, does not give to the judgment creditor right and title to the homestead.

11924–1924
Richards v. Shields green
ga · 1912
1 sentence

1924R. 164 )]; Richards v. Shields, 138 Ga. 583 ( 75 S. E. 602 ); Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green, 149 Ga. 610 ( 101 S. E. 538 ).” Joyner v. Bank of Menlo, supra. A homestead waiver in a note, upon which judgment is obtained, does not give to the judgment creditor right and title to the homestead.

11924–1924
Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green neutral
ga · 1919
2 sentences

1924R. 164 )]; Richards v. Shields, 138 Ga. 583 ( 75 S. E. 602 ); Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green, 149 Ga. 610 ( 101 S. E. 538 ).” Joyner v. Bank of Menlo, supra. A homestead waiver in a note, upon which judgment is obtained, does not give to the judgment creditor right and title to the homestead.

1924R. 164 )]; Richards v. Shields, 138 Ga. 583 ( 75 S. E. 602 ); Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green, 149 Ga. 610 ( 101 S. E. 538 ).” Joyner v. Bank of Menlo, supra. A homestead waiver in a note, upon which judgment is obtained, does not give to the judgment creditor right and title to the homestead.

11924–1924
Bacon & Co. v. Capital City Bank green
ga · 1898
2 sentences

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

11923–1923
Smith v. Willis green
ga · 1899
2 sentences

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

11923–1923
Durkin v. Hewlett green
ga · 1918
2 sentences

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

11923–1923
Young v. Harris neutral
ga · 1916
1 sentence

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

11923–1923
Tanner v. White neutral
ga · 1916
1 sentence

1923See Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 ( 45 S. E. 710 ) ; Bacon v. Capital City Bank, 105 Ga. 700 ( 31 S. E. 588 ); Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 792 ( 33 S. E. 667); Young v. Harris, 146 Ga. 338 ( 91 S. E. 39 ); Durkin v. Hewlett, 148 Ga. 635 ( 97 S. E. 640 ).

11923–1923
Small v. Hicks green
· 1889
11918–1918
Lewis, Leonard & Co. v. Brown green
· 1892
11918–1918
Harrington v. Findley green
· 1892
11918–1918
Vinson v. Northen neutral
ga · 1894
1 sentence

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

11918–1918
Vandiver v. Wright neutral
ga · 1894
1 sentence

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

11918–1918
Denton v. Butler & Stevens neutral
ga · 1896
2 sentences

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

11918–1918
Morgan & McFarland v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. neutral
ga · 1897
1 sentence

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

11918–1918
Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co. neutral
gactapp · 1907
2 sentences

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

11918–1918
Furr v. Keesler neutral
gactapp · 1907
2 sentences

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

11918–1918
Williams v. Peoples Bank of Summit neutral
gactapp · 1911
2 sentences

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

1918Prather v. Smith, 101 Ga, 283 (2) ( 28 S. E. 857 ); Small v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 691 ( 8 S. E. 628 ); Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115 ( 14 S. E. 881 ); Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385 ( 15 S. E. 483 ); Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698 ( 19 S. E. 990 ); Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264 ( 25 S. E. 624 ); Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 69 (1) ( 59 S. E. 336 ); Furr v. Keesler, 3 Ga. App. 188 ( 59 S. E. 596 ); King v. State, 9 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 72 S. E. 177 ).

11918–1918
Timothy v. Chambers neutral
ga · 1890
11917–1917
Powell v. Amoss green
ga · 1890
11917–1917

Where else courts name it

TX 120 (1878–2026) CA 18 (1867–2003) KS 18 (1875–2020) WA 15 (1898–2025) FL 14 (1982–2024) GA 12 (1896–1960) LA 12 (1880–2014) OK 9 (1895–1953) AR 8 (1878–1979) IA 8 (1862–2022) NE 7 (1887–2017) AL 7 (1879–1950) ND 7 (1898–2019) MS 5 (1951–1976) OR 5 (1926–2013) IL 4 (1896–2022) CO 4 (1894–1912) WI 4 (1902–2019) MI 4 (1880–2020) UT 3 (2003–2017) MN 3 (1923–2006) MO 3 (1890–1971) NH 3 (2014–2019) KY 2 (1911–1936) NV 2 (1869–2022) SD 2 (1896–1960)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check