O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21 (2019)

Rights and remedies to enforce choses in action

✓ 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

For every violation of an express or implied contract and for every injury done by another to one’s person or property, the law gives a right to recover and a remedy to enforce it. The right is a chose in action, and the remedy is an action at law.

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 2223; Code 1868, § 2217; Code 1873, § 2243; Code 1882,

§ 2243; Civil Code 1895, § 3076; Civil Code 1910, § 3652; Code 1933, § 85-1802.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Creation of right of action. - Nothing is needed under O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21 but a right in the plaintiff and some invasion of that right by the defendant to create a right of action. Stafford v. Maddox, 87 Ga. 537, 13 S.E. 559, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 218 (1891). There can be no right of action until there has been a wrong, that is, a violation of a legal right. City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785, 48 S.E. 318, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 708 (1904); Strachan Shipping Co. v. Hazlip-Hood Cotton Co., 161 Ga. 480, 131 S.E. 283, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 288 (1926). O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21 is remedy which the law gives to enforce a right, arising from the violation of a contract, or for an injury done to a person or property. Chisholm v. Lewis & Co., 66 Ga. 729, 1881 Ga. LEXIS 98 (1881); State Hwy. Dep’t v. Noble, 220 Ga. 410, 139 S.E.2d 318, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 571 (1964). O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21 should be harmonized as to right and remedy with O.C.G.A. § 9-2-3 unless the law forbids. Cox v. Strickland, 120 Ga. 104, 47 S.E. 912, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 456 (1904). Right of action for tort is “chose in action” under O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21. Gamble v. Cent. R.R. & Banking Co., 80 Ga. 595, 7 S.E. 315, 1888 Ga. LEXIS 198 (1888); Central R.R. & Banking Co. v.

Brunswick & W.R.R., 87 Ga. 386, 13 S.E. 520, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 173 (1891), overruled, Guhl v. Davis, 242 Ga. 356, 249 S.E.2d 43, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1204 (1978). Assignability. - Pursuant to Georgia law, the debtor’s cause of action for wrongful foreclosure was an injury to property, which made it an assignable chose in action. Colony Bank Worth v. 150 Beachview Holdings, LLC (In re Fry), No. 03-20394, No. 06-02037, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4743 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Mar. 23, 2007). Recovery for damage to property is not bar to subsequent action for injury to person where one sustains both injuries from the same act or acts of negligence of another. Endsley v. Georgia Ry. & Power Co., 37 Ga. App. 439, 140 S.E. 386, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 731 (1927), aff’d, 167 Ga. 416, 145 S.E. 855, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 166 (1928). Instruction as to unrelated matters inappropriate. - In a suit to recover compensation for the damaging of real property as the consequence of a public improvement, instructions as to the measure of damages and relevant to a tort action are not appropriate as they are issues which were neither made by the pleadings nor the evidence. Clarke County Sch. Dist. v. Madden, 99 Ga. App. 670, 110 S.E.2d 47, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 931 (1959).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 63 Am. Jur. 2d, Property, § 23. C.J.S. 73 C.J.S., Property, § 22. ALR. Presence of noxious weeds as ground for rescission of contract for purchase of land, 2 A.L.R. 1511. Necessity, as condition of action at law, a defense thereto, based on rescission of contract, of return or tender before act of

securities, commercial paper, or documents evidencing proper or contractual rights received as consideration, 105 A.L.R. 1003. Hotel or innkeeper’s liability for refusal to honor reservation, 58 A.L.R.3d 369. Measure and element of damages recoverable from vendor where there has been a mistake as to amount of land conveyed, 94 A.L.R.3d 1091.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Levine v. Weyer (In Re DotMD, LLC), 303 B.R. 519 (N.D. Ga. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Levine v. Weyer (In Re DotMD, LLC), 303 B.R. 519 (N.D. Ga. 2003). · cites it 4× “O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21 (2003). “Chose” is French for “thing,” and a chose in action can be distinguished from a “chose in possession.”

Prodigy Centers/atlanta No. 1 L.P. Prodigy Centers No. 2 L.P. v. T-C Assocs., Ltd., Etc., United States of Am., 127 F.3d 1021 (11th Cir. 1997). “See O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21. Thus, a chose in action is any personal right that has not yet been reduced to possession but is recoverable by a suit at law.”

Navicent Health, Inc. v. Mufid a. Othman (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 44-12-21 states: “For every violation of an express or implied contract and for every injury done by another to one’s person or property, the law gives a right to recover and a remedy to enforce it.”

Prodigy Centers v. T-C Assocs., 147 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1998). “See O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21. Thus, a chose in action is any personal right that has not yet been reduced to possession but is recoverable by a suit at law.”

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.