Bowden v. King

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bowden v. King

106 S.E. 926, 26 Ga. App. 705, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 602

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1921

Docket11825

StatusPublished

This text of 106 S.E. 926 (Bowden v. King) 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

Bowden v. King, 106 S.E. 926, 26 Ga. App. 705, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

“ The right to rescind a horse swap exists only by virtue of such special terms of the contract of sale as may so authorize, or, in the absence of any such agreement, by reason of knowingly false and fraudulent misrepresentations of existing facts, made to the complaining party, whereby he was induced to act to his injury.” Barnett v. Speir, 93 Ga. 762; Sewkirk v. Burts, 25 Ga. App. 689 (104 S. E. 456) ; Battle v. Livingston, 21 Ga. App. 809 (95 S. E. 314) ; Houze v. Blackwell, 144 Ga. 700(2) (87 S. E. 1054); Stovall v. McBrayer, 20 Ga. App. 93 (92 S. E. 543). Under these principles of law, the verdict .for the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sill, JJ., concur.

Trover; from city court of Greensboro — Judge Brown. July 17, 1920.

Tbe exceptions, are to the-overruling of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, based on general grounds only. According to the plaintiff’s evidence, he and the defendant exchanged mules upon the express agreement that if the defendant’s mule " was not sound and all right, it was no trade,” and the mule delivered to the defendant was to be again the plaintiff’s mule, and vice versa. The mule received by the plaintiff proved to be deaf, and, immediately on his discovery of the defect, he sough", to restore the original status. By trover he sought to recover the mule delivered to the defendant, and the verdict was in his favor. The contention made in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is that deafness is not "unsoundness” or such a defect as would prevent the animal from being considered “ sound and all right.”

J. G. Faust, for plaintiff in error. Noel P. Parle, contra.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

“ The right to rescind a horse swap exists only by virtue of such special terms of the contract of sale as may so authorize, or, in the absence of any such agreement, by reason of knowingly false and fraudulent misrepresentations of existing facts, made to the complaining party, whereby he was induced to act to his injury.” Barnett v. Speir, 93 Ga. 762; Sewkirk v. Burts, 25 Ga. App. 689 (104 S. E. 456) ; Battle v. Livingston, 21 Ga. App. 809 (95 S. E. 314) ; Houze v. Blackwell, 144 Ga. 700(2) (87 S. E. 1054); Stovall v. McBrayer, 20 Ga. App. 93 (92 S. E. 543). Under these principles of law, the verdict .for the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sill, JJ., concur.

Trover; from city court of Greensboro — Judge Brown. July 17, 1920.

Tbe exceptions, are to the-overruling of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, based on general grounds only. According to the plaintiff’s evidence, he and the defendant exchanged mules upon the express agreement that if the defendant’s mule " was not sound and all right, it was no trade,” and the mule delivered to the defendant was to be again the plaintiff’s mule, and vice versa. The mule received by the plaintiff proved to be deaf, and, immediately on his discovery of the defect, he sough", to restore the original status. By trover he sought to recover the mule delivered to the defendant, and the verdict was in his favor. The contention made in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is that deafness is not "unsoundness” or such a defect as would prevent the animal from being considered “ sound and all right.”

J. G. Faust, for plaintiff in error. Noel P. Parle, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 926, 26 Ga. App. 705, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowden-v-king-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack