Butler v. Sams

75 S.E. 1127, 138 Ga. 748, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 689
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 28, 1912·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Properly construed, the first count was an action on the contract for money, being the balance of the purchase-price alleged to be due for the land. By the record before us there was no agreement to pay the balance of the alleged purchase-price otherwise than in stock; and hence there could be no recovery by the plaintiff under the first count. There was no evidence to show the market value of the stock at the time it was contracted to be delivered; and hence there could be no recovery under the second count. Under these circumstances, a general verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded by the evidence; and if there was any error in the charge of the court, as complained of, it would not require a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Butler v. Sams, 75 S.E. 1127, 138 Ga. 748, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 689 (Ga. 1912).

75 S.E. 1127 (Butler v. Sams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ryals v. Livingston
163 S.E. 286 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Cook v. Clarke Chevrolet Co.
153 S.E. 88 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Adams v. Fleming
127 S.E. 819 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Busbee v. Chapman
76 S.E. 377 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)