Brooks v. Williams Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brooks v. Williams Manufacturing Co.

115 S.E. 150, 29 Ga. App. 258, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 218

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket13676

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 115 S.E. 150 (Brooks v. Williams Manufacturing Co.) 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

Brooks v. Williams Manufacturing Co., 115 S.E. 150, 29 Ga. App. 258, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The notes sued upon contain the following provisions: “ This note is made for the purchase of one Dort Auto-Truck, with stake body, and cab, the title to which remains in the said Williams Manufacturing Company until this note is paid in full. If the property for which this note is given should become injured or destroyed, the same shall be my loss, and I shall remain bound to pay this debt. And it is expressly agreed that said property is sold without any warranty, express or implied, and that I accept said property upon my own judgment as to its quality or fitness for the use intended.” The plea of the defendant set up no legal defense, and the court did not err in striking it and rendering judgment for the plaintiff. This case falls squarely within the ruling announced in Brooks v. Jenkins, 15 Ga. App. 64 (82 S. E. 634), and cases there cited.

Judgment aflvrmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Evans & Evans, for plaintiff in error,

cited: 111 Ga. 740; 10 Ga. App. 362; 118 Ga. 198; 4 Ga. App. 351; 134 Ga. 288.

J. Hines Wood, contra,

cited 15 Ga. App. 64, and cit.

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

Luke, J.

The notes sued upon contain the following provisions: “ This note is made for the purchase of one Dort Auto-Truck, with stake body, and cab, the title to which remains in the said Williams Manufacturing Company until this note is paid in full. If the property for which this note is given should become injured or destroyed, the same shall be my loss, and I shall remain bound to pay this debt. And it is expressly agreed that said property is sold without any warranty, express or implied, and that I accept said property upon my own judgment as to its quality or fitness for the use intended.” The plea of the defendant set up no legal defense, and the court did not err in striking it and rendering judgment for the plaintiff. This case falls squarely within the ruling announced in Brooks v. Jenkins, 15 Ga. App. 64 (82 S. E. 634), and cases there cited.

Judgment aflvrmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Evans & Evans, for plaintiff in error,

cited: 111 Ga. 740; 10 Ga. App. 362; 118 Ga. 198; 4 Ga. App. 351; 134 Ga. 288.

J. Hines Wood, contra,

cited 15 Ga. App. 64, and cit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.E. 150, 29 Ga. App. 258, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-williams-manufacturing-co-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack