BERRY et al. v. JACKSON

Supreme Court of Georgia1902-04-03

115 Ga. 196

Summary · law.co

Holding. The trial court properly refused to allow the defendant to assert a bankruptcy discharge as a defense in a trover action, because title to the specific property—not debt—is the sole issue in such actions, and a bankruptcy discharge does not affect questions of property ownership. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

Jackson brought a trover action against Berry to recover possession of a horse. Berry admitted possessing the horse but denied Jackson's right to recover it. While the case was pending, Berry obtained a discharge in bankruptcy and sought to raise this as a defense by filing a special plea and attempting to amend his original plea to include the bankruptcy discharge. He also requested that his surety on the bond be made a party defendant. The trial court rejected both requests and directed a verdict for the plaintiff, who elected to receive a money judgment for damages rather than recover the specific property.

The appellate court upheld the trial court's rulings. The court held that the central issue in a trover action is always title to the specific property in dispute. The plaintiff's election to accept monetary damages instead of the property itself does not change the fundamental nature of the case or convert it into a debt claim that could be affected by bankruptcy proceedings. Because trover concerns property ownership rather than debt, Berry's bankruptcy discharge was irrelevant to the action and could not serve as a defense.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a bankruptcy discharge is a valid defense in a trover action
Whether the nature of a trover action changes when the plaintiff elects to take a money verdict rather than recover the specific property
Whether a defendant's surety should be made a party to assert bankruptcy discharge rights

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed a directed verdict entered in favor of the plaintiff in a trover action, raising by bill of exceptions the trial court's rejection of a special plea and amendment asserting a bankruptcy discharge as a defense.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

An action of bail-trover was brought by Jackson against Berry, to recover possession of a horse. The defendant .gave bond, and filed a plea in which he admitted the possession of the horse, but denied the plaintiff’s right to a recovery. When the case was called for trial, he offered to file a special plea, in which lie asked that the surety on his bond be made a party defendant to the case, and sought to set up in defense to the plaintiff’s action a discharge in bankruptcy granted to him by the United States district court for the southern district of Georgia while the trover suit was pending. The court refused to pass an order making the surety a party, and the defendant then attempted to set up his discharge in bankruptcy, by way of amendment to his original plea. This amendment the court also refused to allow. The case proceeded to trial, and the plaintiff elected to take a money verdict, for the •damages alleged to have been sustained; whereupon the defendant renewed his request that the surety be made a party, and his offer to amend his plea; both of which the court refused, on the ground that, “ though plaintiff had elected to take a verdict for damages solely, the question at issue was still one of title, and could not be affected by the bankrupt proceedings.” At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The only •question presented by the bill of exceptions is whether or not the •court erred in rejecting the special plea and the amendment to which reference has been made. We have no hesitancy in deciding that the rulings of the court below were correct. The sole issue in the trial of an action of trover is that of title to the property in dispute ; and the fact that th¿ plaintiff may elect to take a money verdict in lieu of the specific personalty claimed can in no event alter that issue. Campbell v. Trunnell, 67 Ga. 518. Counsel for the plaintiff in error proceeds in his brief upon the assumption that the action was based upon a debt owed by Berry to Jackson, and argues that as such it was a claim from which he was relieved by his discharge in bankruptcy. But no such facts appear in the record. All that we have before us is an action of trover for the recovery •of specific personal property, and, regardless of the election of the plaintiff to take a money verdict, the title to the property in dispute, which was the only issue for determination, could not be af fected by any bankruptcy proceedings in which the defendant may have participated, especially as it nowhere appears, either in the special plea or the amendment to the original plea, that such proceedings were ever brought to the notice of the plaintiff. The only reason assigned for making the surety a party was that he might avail himself of whatever rights his principal acquired by virtue of his discharge in bankruptcy; and therefore what is here said in regard to the principal defendant below is equally applicable to his surety; and it follows that the judgment of the court below will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little and Lewis, JJ., absent.