Bennett v. Atkinson Novelty Co.

118 S.E. 406, 30 Ga. App. 341, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 441
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 12, 1923·No. 14442·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The demurrer to the amended petition was properly overruled.

2. In the instant ease, under the ruling in Atkinson Novelty Co. v. Prince, 28 Ga. App. 497 (111 S. E. 099), the sale and delivery of the goods — which included a “ punch-hoard ” — was a violation of section 397 of the Penal Code (1910), and the seller could not legally recover the price of the goods. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff (the seller of the goods) was therefore contrary to law' and' the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Bennett v. Atkinson Novelty Co., 118 S.E. 406, 30 Ga. App. 341, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 441 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

118 S.E. 406 (Bennett v. Atkinson Novelty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Atkinson Novelty Co. v. Prince & Son
111 S.E. 699 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Gordon Metal Co. v. Kingan & Co.
111 S.E. 99 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1922)