Cohn & Co. v. Brown

66 S.E. 1038, 7 Ga. App. 395, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 315
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 10, 1910·No. 2180·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition..

A contract hy which one party agrees to huy and another party agrees to sell the output of the latter’s sawmill during a named year, estimated at a certain designated quantity, is not unilateral or too indefinite for enforcement. Oak City Cooperage Co. v. Kennedy Slave Co., 4 Ga. App. 344 (61 S. E. 499); McCaw Mfg. Co. v. Felder, 115 Ga. 408 (41 S. E. 664).

2. Though the plaintiff may not he entitled to the full amount claimed in his petition, this does not authorize the court to sustain a general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

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

Cohn & Co. v. Brown, 66 S.E. 1038, 7 Ga. App. 395, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 315 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

66 S.E. 1038 (Cohn & Co. v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southern Land, Timber & Pulp Corp. v. Davis & Floyd Engineers, Inc.
135 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Self v. Smith
107 S.E.2d 721 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Wolf v. Arant
77 S.E.2d 116 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
King v. Tilley
21 S.E.2d 134 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Mill Wood & Coal Co. v. Flint River Cypress Co.
85 S.E. 943 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)