Bryan v. Yates

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bryan v. Yates

67 S.E. 1048, 7 Ga. App. 712, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 485

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 12, 1910·No. 2299·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

TTtt.t, O. J.

Where a deed to land described the quantity of acres conveyed as being “80 acres, more or less, ” and there was an alleged' shortage of 26 acres, it was for the jury, and not for the court, to say whether this deficiency was so gross as to authorize a rescission of [713] the contract, or an apportionment of the purchase-price, under §3542 of the Civil Code. - Judgment reversed.

Complaint; from city court of Moultrie — Judge McKenzie. Hovember 13, 1909.

Submitted February 33, Decided May 12, 1910. Shipp & Kline, for plaintiff in error. Branch & Snow, James Humphreys, contra.

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

TTtt.t, O. J.

Where a deed to land described the quantity of acres conveyed as being “80 acres, more or less, ” and there was an alleged' shortage of 26 acres, it was for the jury, and not for the court, to say whether this deficiency was so gross as to authorize a rescission of [713] the contract, or an apportionment of the purchase-price, under §3542 of the Civil Code. - Judgment reversed.

Complaint; from city court of Moultrie — Judge McKenzie. Hovember 13, 1909.

Submitted February 33, Decided May 12, 1910. Shipp & Kline, for plaintiff in error. Branch & Snow, James Humphreys, contra.

Bryan v. Yates, 67 S.E. 1048, 7 Ga. App. 712, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 485 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

67 S.E. 1048 (Bryan v. Yates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related