Under the law and the facts, the court did not err in directing the verdict for the plaintiff, and consequently did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial.
1. It is conceded in the brief of the plaintiff in error that "If the paper [the conditional-sale contract] was properly recorded under the facts and circumstances of this case, then and in that event the defendant, Eastern Motor Company, would be liable for the value of the car." "The registration and record of conditional bills of sale shall be governed in all respects by the laws relating to the registration of mortgages on personal property, . ." Code, § 67-1403. Code, § 67-108, provides that a mortgage on personalty shall be recorded in the county where the mortgagor resided at the time of its execution, if a resident of this State. It appears from the record without contradiction that W. C. Frazier was a resident of Columbus, Muscogee County, Georgia, on August 8, 1936, when he purchased the automobile in question, and that the conditional-sale contract given by him to the McMurria Motor Company for the car was recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of Muscogee County, Georgia, on August 28, 1937. So, the conditional-sale contract was recorded in the county where the mortgagor resided at the time of its execution, and this was done some six months before the automobile covered by the bill of sale was sold by W. C. Frazier, in Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia, to the Eastern Motor Company. Under the facts as here presented, it is immaterial whether the conditional-sale contract was recorded immediately after its execution or at the time when in fact it was recorded, as it does not appear from the record that the defendant, before purchasing the automobile, made any investigation as to where W. C. Frazier got the car or whether he had *Page 355
paid for it. It was held in Atkinson v.Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.,
2. Under the facts of this case and the law applicable thereto, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, and consequently did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J.,concur.
