Baum v. Hobbs

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Baum v. Hobbs

93 S.E. 165, 20 Ga. App. 619, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1006

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1917

Docket8635

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 165 (Baum v. Hobbs) 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

Baum v. Hobbs, 93 S.E. 165, 20 Ga. App. 619, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1006 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

This was an action in trover to recover a promissory note for $100 and a milch cow, both given for a horse. The plaintiff elected to take a money verdict, and the jury returned a verdict in his favor for $137.50. The plaintiff’s own evidence showed that he traded for the horse on a Monday, and on the same day drove it home, and in the latter part of the same week discovered certain defects in the horse. His evidence further showed, that, although he promptly carried the horse back to the defendant and complained of its defects, and although on several subsequent occasions he conversed with the defendant on the same subject, he did not demand a rescission of the trade until about a month after the trade, and until after the horse had been badly ruptured. The undisputed evidence in the ease further showed that the rupture had greatly lessened the value of the horse, and that it occurred after the horse had been for “some time” in the possession of the plaintiff. There was no evidence whatever to show that the rupture resulted from any of the defects complained of in the horse. Under such circumstances the plaintiff had no right to a rescission of the trade, and the finding [620]*620of the jury in his favor was contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins and Blood-worth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

This was an action in trover to recover a promissory note for $100 and a milch cow, both given for a horse. The plaintiff elected to take a money verdict, and the jury returned a verdict in his favor for $137.50. The plaintiff’s own evidence showed that he traded for the horse on a Monday, and on the same day drove it home, and in the latter part of the same week discovered certain defects in the horse. His evidence further showed, that, although he promptly carried the horse back to the defendant and complained of its defects, and although on several subsequent occasions he conversed with the defendant on the same subject, he did not demand a rescission of the trade until about a month after the trade, and until after the horse had been badly ruptured. The undisputed evidence in the ease further showed that the rupture had greatly lessened the value of the horse, and that it occurred after the horse had been for “some time” in the possession of the plaintiff. There was no evidence whatever to show that the rupture resulted from any of the defects complained of in the horse. Under such circumstances the plaintiff had no right to a rescission of the trade, and the finding [620]*620of the jury in his favor was contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins and Blood-worth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 165, 20 Ga. App. 619, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baum-v-hobbs-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack