Cason v. Jordon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cason v. Jordon

38 Ga. App. 761

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1928

Docket18778

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 Ga. App. 761 (Cason v. Jordon) 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

Cason v. Jordon, 38 Ga. App. 761 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “An imjfiied warranty against defects in the thing sold is excluded by a provision in the written contract of sale that the vendor does not warrant the property except as to title.” Payne v. Chai[762]*762Max Motor Co., 25 Ga. App. 677 (104 S. E. 453); Harrell v. Holman, 21 Ga. App. 159 (93 S. E. 1021). P

Eli B. Hublard, for plaintiff in error. George II. Carswell, contra.

2. Where an automobile is sold and delivered under a written contract containing the provision that “the vendor does not make any warranty of said property, either express or implied, except that the title to same is in vendor and free from encumbrance,” a subsequent promise on the part of the vendor to furnish certain'parts to make repairs to the automobile, and to warrant the property as thus repaired to give entire satisfaction, upon the vendee agreeing to pay the purchase-money notes already given under the written contract of sale, is a mere nudum pactum, and unenforceable. Davis v. Morgan, 117 Ga. 504 (43 S. E. 732, 62 L. R. A. 93, 97 Am. St. R. 177); Willingham Sash & Door Co. v. Drew, 117 Ga. 850 (45 S. E. 237).

3. Under the principles of law set forth above, the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff vendor, suing in trover to recover the property sold under a contract retaining title in the vendor, for the balance due on the purchase-price.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “An imjfiied warranty against defects in the thing sold is excluded by a provision in the written contract of sale that the vendor does not warrant the property except as to title.” Payne v. Chai[762]*762Max Motor Co., 25 Ga. App. 677 (104 S. E. 453); Harrell v. Holman, 21 Ga. App. 159 (93 S. E. 1021). P

Eli B. Hublard, for plaintiff in error. George II. Carswell, contra.

2. Where an automobile is sold and delivered under a written contract containing the provision that “the vendor does not make any warranty of said property, either express or implied, except that the title to same is in vendor and free from encumbrance,” a subsequent promise on the part of the vendor to furnish certain'parts to make repairs to the automobile, and to warrant the property as thus repaired to give entire satisfaction, upon the vendee agreeing to pay the purchase-money notes already given under the written contract of sale, is a mere nudum pactum, and unenforceable. Davis v. Morgan, 117 Ga. 504 (43 S. E. 732, 62 L. R. A. 93, 97 Am. St. R. 177); Willingham Sash & Door Co. v. Drew, 117 Ga. 850 (45 S. E. 237).

3. Under the principles of law set forth above, the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff vendor, suing in trover to recover the property sold under a contract retaining title in the vendor, for the balance due on the purchase-price.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Ga. App. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cason-v-jordon-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack