Britt v. Kersey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Britt v. Kersey

157 S.E. 384, 42 Ga. App. 753, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 132

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1931

Docket20665

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.E. 384 (Britt v. Kersey) 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

Britt v. Kersey, 157 S.E. 384, 42 Ga. App. 753, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being a suit against tile maker by the transferee of a note, in which the defendant pleaded that the note was given for the purchase-price of a mule, and that the warranties as to soundness and good health had been breached, to the defendant’s damage in the full amount of the note, that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course, but was the true original owner of the note, and there being evidence to authorize the inference that the plaintiff, whether or not he was a partner of the payee of the note, was engaged in the business of selling mules through the payee as his agent to whom the plaintiff furnished the money for tire operation of the business, and that the plaintiff owned an interest in the mule when it was sold to the defendant, and there being also evidence to the effect that the mule was unsound and sick and died soon after the defendant bought it, the evidence authorized the verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

This being a suit against tile maker by the transferee of a note, in which the defendant pleaded that the note was given for the purchase-price of a mule, and that the warranties as to soundness and good health had been breached, to the defendant’s damage in the full amount of the note, that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course, but was the true original owner of the note, and there being evidence to authorize the inference that the plaintiff, whether or not he was a partner of the payee of the note, was engaged in the business of selling mules through the payee as his agent to whom the plaintiff furnished the money for tire operation of the business, and that the plaintiff owned an interest in the mule when it was sold to the defendant, and there being also evidence to the effect that the mule was unsound and sick and died soon after the defendant bought it, the evidence authorized the verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E. 384, 42 Ga. App. 753, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-kersey-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack