Brooks v. Jenkins

82 S.E. 634, 15 Ga. App. 64, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 19
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided August 22, 1914·No. 5677·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

As the purchase-money note sued on purported to contain the terms of the sale, and contained an express waiver of “all warranty” as to the mules for which the note was given, “except as to the title,” parol evidence as to breach of warranties implied by law, as well as of a breach of parol warranties contemporaneous with the execution of the written contract, should have been excluded. The court did not err in refusing a new trial. Branan v. Warfield, 3 Ga. App. 586 (60 S. E. 325); Branch v. James, 4 Ga. App. 90 (60 S. E. 1027) ; Boswell v. Johnson, 5 Ga. App. 251 (62 S. E. 1003) ; Watson v. Smith, ante, 62 (82 S. E. 633); McNeel v. Smith, 106 Ga. 215 (32 S. E. 119) ; Bullard v. Brewer, 118 Ga. 918 (45 S. E. 711). And see Pryor v. Ludden, 134 Ga. 289 (67 S. E. 654, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 267).

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Brooks v. Jenkins, 82 S.E. 634, 15 Ga. App. 64, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 19 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

82 S.E. 634 (Brooks v. Jenkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frick Co. v. Lawson
179 S.E. 274 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Brooks v. Williams Manufacturing Co.
115 S.E. 150 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Gary v. Parker
89 S.E. 599 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)