Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Ezzell

73 S.E. 591, 10 Ga. App. 647, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 630

Opinion

Hill, O. J.

Tlie allegations of the petition, if proved, in the absence of a defense, would authorize a recovery of the damages claimed, and there was no error in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Pottle, J., not presiding.

The defendant demurred generally, and on the following grounds: That it did not appeal- what authority Perryman had to represent the defendant, or that he was such an agent as that assurances or statements made by him would bind the defendant; that it did not appear whether the representations made byr Perrynnan were in parol or in writing, and, if in writing, no copy of the writing was exhibited; that the petition failed to set out a copy of the plaintiff’s letter to the defendant; that it appeared from the contract exhibited that no representation made by any person as an inducement to execute the contract bound the defendant; that the alleged damages were speculative and conjectural, and were too vague and indefinite to constitute the basis of recovery; and that, special damages not being recoverable, and there being no prayer for general damages, the plaintiff should not recover.

Payne, Little & Jones, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Cable Co. v. Powell, 3 Ga. App. 73; Langston v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 6 Get,. App. 833; 1 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. (2d ed.) 987; Baldwin v. Daniel, 69 Ga. 782 (5); Biggers y. Equitable Mfg. Co., 124 Ga. 1045; Stimpson Computing Scale Co. y. Taylor, 4 Ga. App. 567; Hand v. Armstrong, 34 Ga. 233, 235; Christophulos Café Co. y. Phillips, 4 Ga. App. 819.