Barrow v. Pennington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barrow v. Pennington

87 S.E. 719, 17 Ga. App. 481, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 718

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1916

Docket6262

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 719 (Barrow v. Pennington) 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

Barrow v. Pennington, 87 S.E. 719, 17 Ga. App. 481, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 718 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. Giving the document attached to the plaintiff’s petition the most liberal construction, it is not such a contract as will support the allegations of the petition, and the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained.

(a) The letter which the plaintiff claimed was a contract between himself and the defendant, and which was written by the defendant to one Stewart, the agent and overseer of the plaintiff, was as follows: “Mr. J. Stewart: Butler tells me that Ployd will take all of his corn and fodder on what he owes. Settle with him, and send me the amount due, [482]*482and I will take it up. Yours truly, J. A. Barrow.” This contract, if it can be so called, is subject to the objections urged, to wit, that it is vague, indefinite, and ambiguous, and might reasonably be construed to embrace a condition precedent, viz., that all of Butler Simpkins’s corn and fodder must.be taken by Floyd Pennington, and applied by him as a credit upon Simpkins’s debt, and that after this has been done, the defendant, Barrow, will- “take up” the balance of the debt. It is not alleged in the original petition, or in the amendment thereto, that this part of the contract was performed by the plaintiff; and the itemized statement of the plaintiff’s account against Butler Simpkins, attached to the amendment to the answer, shows that no corn or fodder was allowed as a credit on the account. It is not apparent that the minds of the parties to this alleged contract ever met upon the consideration, the subject-matter, or the terms thereof.

Decided January 20, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Louisville — Judge Phillips. December 23, 1914.

M. 0. Barwich, for plaintiff in error. B. N. Hardeman, Frank Hardeman, contra.

2. The error in overruling the general and special grounds of demurrer rendered nugatory the further proceedings in the trial.

Judgment reversed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. Giving the document attached to the plaintiff’s petition the most liberal construction, it is not such a contract as will support the allegations of the petition, and the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained.

(a) The letter which the plaintiff claimed was a contract between himself and the defendant, and which was written by the defendant to one Stewart, the agent and overseer of the plaintiff, was as follows: “Mr. J. Stewart: Butler tells me that Ployd will take all of his corn and fodder on what he owes. Settle with him, and send me the amount due, [482]*482and I will take it up. Yours truly, J. A. Barrow.” This contract, if it can be so called, is subject to the objections urged, to wit, that it is vague, indefinite, and ambiguous, and might reasonably be construed to embrace a condition precedent, viz., that all of Butler Simpkins’s corn and fodder must.be taken by Floyd Pennington, and applied by him as a credit upon Simpkins’s debt, and that after this has been done, the defendant, Barrow, will- “take up” the balance of the debt. It is not alleged in the original petition, or in the amendment thereto, that this part of the contract was performed by the plaintiff; and the itemized statement of the plaintiff’s account against Butler Simpkins, attached to the amendment to the answer, shows that no corn or fodder was allowed as a credit on the account. It is not apparent that the minds of the parties to this alleged contract ever met upon the consideration, the subject-matter, or the terms thereof.

Decided January 20, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Louisville — Judge Phillips. December 23, 1914.

M. 0. Barwich, for plaintiff in error. B. N. Hardeman, Frank Hardeman, contra.

2. The error in overruling the general and special grounds of demurrer rendered nugatory the further proceedings in the trial.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 719, 17 Ga. App. 481, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrow-v-pennington-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack