Adams v. Fleming

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. Fleming

127 S.E. 819, 33 Ga. App. 742, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 708

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1925

Docket15906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 819 (Adams v. Fleming) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Fleming, 127 S.E. 819, 33 Ga. App. 742, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 708 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. Wliero an action was brought upon an open account os for the balance of the purchase price of property sold and delivered, and the evidence on the trial showed without dispute that the property had not been sold, but had been delivered to the defendant rmder a contract for the exchange of the same for other property, a part of which the plaintiff had not received, and that the plaintiff had not rescinded the contract or offered to do so, but was relying thereon, a verdict in his favor was without any evidence to support it, and contrary to law', . The plaintiff's remedy was an action for damages for a breach of contract, and the measure of damages would be the market value of the property that he should have received, but had not received, in the exchange, to be. determined as of the time for delivery under the contract. Butler v. Sams, 138 Ga. 748 (75 S. E. 1127); Busbee v. Chapman, 139 Ga. 19 (76 S. E. 377); Civil Code (1910), §§ 4270, 4271.

2. It follows that the court erred in refusing a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. Claude Christopher, for-plaintiff in error. Dobbs & Barrett, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell, J.

1. Wliero an action was brought upon an open account os for the balance of the purchase price of property sold and delivered, and the evidence on the trial showed without dispute that the property had not been sold, but had been delivered to the defendant rmder a contract for the exchange of the same for other property, a part of which the plaintiff had not received, and that the plaintiff had not rescinded the contract or offered to do so, but was relying thereon, a verdict in his favor was without any evidence to support it, and contrary to law', . The plaintiff's remedy was an action for damages for a breach of contract, and the measure of damages would be the market value of the property that he should have received, but had not received, in the exchange, to be. determined as of the time for delivery under the contract. Butler v. Sams, 138 Ga. 748 (75 S. E. 1127); Busbee v. Chapman, 139 Ga. 19 (76 S. E. 377); Civil Code (1910), §§ 4270, 4271.

2. It follows that the court erred in refusing a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. Claude Christopher, for-plaintiff in error. Dobbs & Barrett, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 819, 33 Ga. App. 742, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-fleming-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

2. It follows that the court erred in refusing a new trial.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack