Blanchard v. Sachs

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blanchard v. Sachs

74 Ga. App. 727

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 30, 1947

Docket31358

StatusPublished

This text of 74 Ga. App. 727 (Blanchard v. Sachs) 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

Blanchard v. Sachs, 74 Ga. App. 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) In our view of this case, under the evidence adduced, the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff depended upon the question whether or not the defendant had withdrawn his offer to purchase the property in question prior to an unconditional and unequivocal acceptance of the offer by the owner of the property. On that question the evidence was in sharp conflict and would have authorized a finding for either party. Therefore, the finding of the judge, sitting as both judge and jury, was authorized by the evidence; and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

The special grounds are merely elaborations of the general grounds and fail to show cause for another hearing of the ease.

The cases cited in behalf of the plaintiff in error are differentiated from this ease by their particular facts.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) In our view of this case, under the evidence adduced, the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff depended upon the question whether or not the defendant had withdrawn his offer to purchase the property in question prior to an unconditional and unequivocal acceptance of the offer by the owner of the property. On that question the evidence was in sharp conflict and would have authorized a finding for either party. Therefore, the finding of the judge, sitting as both judge and jury, was authorized by the evidence; and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

The special grounds are merely elaborations of the general grounds and fail to show cause for another hearing of the ease.

The cases cited in behalf of the plaintiff in error are differentiated from this ease by their particular facts.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Ga. App. 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-sachs-gactapp-1947.