Georgia Court of Appeals, 1925

Rowell v. Fincher

Georgia Court of Appeals · Decided February 24, 1925 · Acepnens

33 Ga. App. 506; 126 S.E. 886; 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 552

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Hertz Drivurself Stations, Inc. v. Ritter (9th Cir. 1937)
Clark v. Wood (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

AcEpnENS, J.

1. A sale of corporate stock by one stockholder to another is not complete without a delivery of the stock-certificate, unless by agreement the delivery is dispensed with. Civil Code (1910), § 4125; 14 C. J. 701.

2. Whether or not an interest in a partnership can be represented by a stock-certificate, yet where a suit is instituted to recover the purchase price of the plaintiff’s interest in a certain named partnership, which it is alleged is “represented by two shares of stock,” the purchaser may, in the absence of any proof that by agreement the delivery of the stock-certificate was dispensed with, successfully defend against the suit upon tlie ground that the stock was never delivered.

.3. Where such defense was pleaded and there was evidence to the effect that the stock has never been delivered, and there was no evidence that *507delivery had by agreement been dispensed with, it was error for the court to fail to submit this defense to the jury.

Decided February 24, 1925. M. J. Head, Walter Matthews, for plaintiffs in error. Edwards & Edwards, contra.

Judgment reversed,

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eoneur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.