Connell v. Newkirk-George Motor Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Connell v. Newkirk-George Motor Co.

111 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 382, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 531

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 9, 1922

Docket12658

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 749 (Connell v. Newkirk-George Motor Co.) 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

Connell v. Newkirk-George Motor Co., 111 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 382, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 531 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

It is immaterial wlietlier the plaintiff in the court below was, as contended by it, a bona fide purchaser for value of the negotiable purchase-money instrument sued on, or whether, as contended by the defendant, the plaintiff was in fact the real seller of the car, since the written contract, under which the sale was made, expressly provided that the “ vendor does not warrant said property, and makes no representations concerning same, except that title to same is in vendor and free from incumbrances;” and consequently the defendant was not entitled to contradict the written terms of the contract of sale by pleading express warranties and misrepresentations on the part of the vendor, relative to the quality and condition of the second-hand car which constituted the subject-matter of the sale. Harrell v. Holman, 21 Ga. App. 159 (93 S. E. 1021); Payne v. Chal-Max Motor Co., 25 Ga. App. 677 (104 S. E. 453); Finney v. Davis, 26 Ga. App. 23 (105 S. E. 632); Stamps v. Dawson Mfg. Co., 26 Ga. App. 349 (106 S. E. 195); Butler v. Citizens Bank, 28 Ga. App. 184 (110 S. E. 501). The facts of the instant ease differ entirely in this respect from those disclosed in Snellgrove v. Dingelhoef, 25 Ga. App. 334 (103 S. E. 418).

Judgment ajjvrmecl.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. May 19, 1921.

John H. Hudson, for plaintiff in error. George B. Rush, contra.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

It is immaterial wlietlier the plaintiff in the court below was, as contended by it, a bona fide purchaser for value of the negotiable purchase-money instrument sued on, or whether, as contended by the defendant, the plaintiff was in fact the real seller of the car, since the written contract, under which the sale was made, expressly provided that the “ vendor does not warrant said property, and makes no representations concerning same, except that title to same is in vendor and free from incumbrances;” and consequently the defendant was not entitled to contradict the written terms of the contract of sale by pleading express warranties and misrepresentations on the part of the vendor, relative to the quality and condition of the second-hand car which constituted the subject-matter of the sale. Harrell v. Holman, 21 Ga. App. 159 (93 S. E. 1021); Payne v. Chal-Max Motor Co., 25 Ga. App. 677 (104 S. E. 453); Finney v. Davis, 26 Ga. App. 23 (105 S. E. 632); Stamps v. Dawson Mfg. Co., 26 Ga. App. 349 (106 S. E. 195); Butler v. Citizens Bank, 28 Ga. App. 184 (110 S. E. 501). The facts of the instant ease differ entirely in this respect from those disclosed in Snellgrove v. Dingelhoef, 25 Ga. App. 334 (103 S. E. 418).

Judgment ajjvrmecl.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. May 19, 1921.

John H. Hudson, for plaintiff in error. George B. Rush, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 382, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connell-v-newkirk-george-motor-co-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack