O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-1-12 (2019)

What constitutes perfect title

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

One person may have the right of possession of certain property and another person may have the right to the property itself. A union of those rights constitutes a perfect title.

History

(Orig. Code 1863, § 2321; Code 1868, § 2318; Code 1873, § 2349; Code 1882, § 2349; Civil Code 1895, § 3209; Civil Code 1910, § 3797; Code 1933, § 85-103.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article discussing the problems with acquiring good title, see 15 Ga. B.J. 281 (1953). For article advocating

the adoption of a marketable title statute in Georgia, see 16 Ga. B.J. 263 (1954).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS One in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner until the contrary appears, and the burden of rebutting the presumption is upon the party claiming adversely to the one in possession. Hattaway v. Keefe, 191 Ga. App. 315, 381 S.E.2d 569 (1989). Possession of a negotiable instrument is presumptive evidence of title, but it is not conclusive. Hattaway v. Keefe, 191 Ga. App. 315, 381 S.E.2d 569 (1989).

‘‘Perfect title’’ as used in § 53-12-4 to be construed with this section. - Phrase ‘‘perfect title,’’ as used in former Code 1933, § 108-112 was to be construed in connection with the definition of a ‘‘perfect title’’ given in former Code 1933, § 85-103 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-1-12), i.e., the union of right of property and right of possession. Sanders v. First Nat’l Bank, 189 Ga. 450, 6 S.E.2d 294 (1939). Rebuttable presumption of ownership. -

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Property, §§ 22 et seq., 31. 77 Am. Jur. 2d, Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 86, 89, 93, 96. C.J.S. - 73 C.J.S., Property, §§ 39 et seq., 47, 49 et seq. ALR. - Merger, as to other than intervening lienor, on purchase of paramount mortgage by owner of fee, 46 ALR 322. Restriction forbidding manufacture or sale of liquor as breach of covenant of title or against encumbrances, or as negativing marketable title, 51 ALR 1460. Marketable title, 57 ALR 1253; 81 ALR2d 1020.

Marketability of title derived from or through tax proceedings, 115 ALR 140. Right of holder of bond or other instrument representing or based upon assessment for benefits or improvement, to purchase tax sale, or acquire tax title and hold same in his own right as against owner of land, 123 ALR 398. Marketability of title as affected by question as to constitutionality of statute upon which vendor’s title depends, of statute creating encumbrance or restriction upon the property, 152 ALR 963. Vendor and purchaser: marketability of

ing or barring the right to rely on res ipsa loquitur, 2 ALR3d 1335. Right to inundate land as rendering title thereto unmarketable, 15 ALR2d 966. Determination of property rights between local church and parent church body: modern view, 52 ALR3d 324. Use of property by public as affecting acquisition of title by adverse possession, 56 ALR3d 1182.

title as affected by lack or insufficiency of proof that one of the parties to an instrument or proceeding in the chain of title was not married, 161 ALR 1472; 2 ALR3d 1335. Marketability of title as affected by fact that grantor or mortgagor in chain of title acquired complete or perfect title after conveyance, 163 ALR 437. Modern trends as to pleading a particular cause of injury or act of negligence as waiv-

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1989–1989 · leading case: Hattaway v. Keefe, 381 S.E.2d 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
Hattaway v. Keefe, 381 S.E.2d 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 44-1-12 provides: “One person may have the right of possession of certain [personal] property and another person may have the right to the property itself.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.