Bennett v. Atkinson Novelty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bennett v. Atkinson Novelty Co.

118 S.E. 406, 30 Ga. App. 341, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 441

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1923

Docket14442

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.E. 406 (Bennett v. Atkinson Novelty Co.) 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

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

Pincite

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