Campbell v. Alkahest Lyceum System

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Campbell v. Alkahest Lyceum System

74 S.E. 443, 10 Ga. App. 839, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 722

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1912

Docket3740

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 443 (Campbell v. Alkahest Lyceum System) 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

Campbell v. Alkahest Lyceum System, 74 S.E. 443, 10 Ga. App. 839, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1.-The written contract sued upon was complete ' and unambiguous and explicit as to terms. The presiding judge did not err in striking that portion of the answer which attempted to. ingraft upon-.the express terms qf the written contract, by parol, inconsistent. terms and conditions. Civil Code (1910), § 5788; Fleming v. Satterfield, 4 Ga. App. 351 (61 S. E. 518).

2. The contract was signed in the name of the corporation, with..the letters “L. S.” affixed, intended as the seal of "the corporation, The evidence showed that it was executed for the corporation by its president, who was authorized to make the contract for the corporation. Besides, the corporation was endeavoring to enforce it. There was no error in admitting the contract in evidence.

3. The evidence demanded the verdict as directed, and the writ of error is so clearly without merit that the judgment is affirmed and. the motion for ten per cent, damages allowed.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

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