Britt v. Hays

21 Ga. 157
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 15, 1857·No. No. 29·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

The plaintiff treatiug the special contract in this case, as fescindedby the misconduct of the defendant, which he bad a light to do, Rogers vs. Parham 8 Ga. Rep. 190; sued on a quantvim meruit for work aud labor actually performed-He was rectus in curia. His writ or complaint needed no amendment; but he was entitled to recover upon it as it stood, provided he could sustain it by satisfactory proof; and that he was not permitted to do. It was allowable to refer to the special contract to fix the measure of damages; or in other words to prove the value of the plaintiff’s services; as estimated by the defendant himself. He offered to do this however by independent testimony, and the proof was rejected.

Judgment reversed.

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

Britt v. Hays, 21 Ga. 157 (Ga. 1857).

21 Ga. 157 (Britt v. Hays) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosenstock v. Congregation Agudath Achim
164 S.E.2d 283 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Brand v. Ogden-Howard Co.
111 A. 370 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1920)
Cason v. Tye
9 Ga. App. 325 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Jackson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
69 S.E. 919 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Beck v. Thompson & Taylor Spice Co.
33 S.E. 894 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
In re Sawyer
31 Abb. N. Cas. 342 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1894)