Day v. C. O. Smith Guano Co.
Day v. C. O. Smith Guano Co.
Opinion of the Court
The agreed statement of facts, on which the case was tried, was as follows: “1. C. H. Crosby, during the year 1956, resided in Brooks County, Georgia, near the line between Brooks and Lowndes Counties. He was engaged in farming and cultivated lands in Brooks County and in Lowndes County on which his tobacco crop was grown. 2. On or about the 5th day of March 1956, the said C. H. Crosby applied to C. T. Day for a loan to be used in connection with the expense incident to planting, growing and harvesting his crop for the year 1956. C. T. Day advised the said C. H. Crosby that he, C. T. Day, would arrange for the said C. H. Crosby to obtain a loan from First
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaintiffs petition were as follows: “2. That, on August 22, 1956, the defendant converted to his own use all the tobacco grown during the year 1956 by C. H. Crosby of Brooks County, Georgia, on what is known as the Brown and Whitfield Places in Brooks County, Georgia, to which tobacco plaintiff then held title. 3. That, at the time of said conversion, said tobacco was of the market value of, at least, $1,261.07.” The defendant’s answer, with reference to these paragraphs of the petition was as follows: “2. Answering the allegations of paragraph 2 of the petition, defendant denies that on the 22nd day of August, 1956, or at any other time, he con
The defendant in his brief states: “The question for determination is this: Did C. 0. Smith Guano Company have title to the tobacco in question at the time it instituted its suit in trover? If so, the ruling of the trial judge was right. If not, the judgment of the lower court should be reversed.” The questions raised by the defendant’s motions to dismiss, as well as his exception to the final judgment are controlled by this question.
The trover action was predicated, as shown by paragraph 2 of the petition quoted above, on tobacco raised in Brooks County, Georgia and, although the agreed statement of facts refers to a part of the tobacco raised by Crosby being raised in Lowndes County, Georgia, the trover action was not based on tobacco raised in Lowndes County, Georgia, and since the defendant in his answer admitted that the tobacco referred to in the petition was worth approximately the sum alleged in the petition, no question is presented as to the title of tobacco raised by Crosby in Lowndes County, Georgia. Therefore, the question is, “Did the plaintiff in trover have title to the tobacco referred to in its petition, and if so, did the custom prevail whereby farmers were permitted to sell their tobacco crops and then pay off fertilizer bills such as Crosby owed the plaintiff in this case and for which the bill of sale to secure debt was given?”
According to the agreed statement of facts the plaintiff sold certain fertilizers to Crosby and took therefor a bill of sale to secure debt on his tobacco crop which bill of sale to secure debt was recorded in Brooks County, Georgia, on June 2, 1956. Prior to this, the First National Bank, Valdosta, Georgia, had lent Crosby a certain amount of money and taken a bill of sale to secure debt on his tobacco crop, however, according to the agreed statement of facts, this bill of sale toi secure debt was never recorded, nor does it appear that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of this prior bill of sale to secure debt. Therefore, under Code
The defendant contends that the excerpt from the agreed statement of facts, paragraph 7, supra, supports his contention that such a custom did prevail. While this court may take judicial notice that in Georgia tobacco is usually sold in warehouses at auction rather than by negotiated sales between the seller and the buyer, it cannot take judicial notice that the holders of bills of sale to secure debts permit farmers to sell the tobacco secured by these bills of sale and divest the holders thereof of the title given them under such bills of sale. Evidence of such a custom would be admissible (see Bank of Loganville v. Briscoe, 93 Ga. App. 558, 92 S. E. 2d 326), and if such a custom had been proved it would have authorized a judgment in the present case for the defendant in trover; however, since such a custom was not proved, and since the excerpt of the agreed statement of facts only showed that tobacco was usually sold at public auction and that that was the way the tobacco in the present case was sold, the contention of the defendant that there was a custom that would divest the plaintiff in trover of his title to the tobacco raised by Crosby in Brooks County, Georgia, was not supported by the 'evidence. Accordingly, the judgments complained of in the present case must be affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.