Creel v. Turner Bros.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Creel v. Turner Bros.

54 S.E. 724, 125 Ga. 797, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 280

DecidedJuly 3, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 54 S.E. 724 (Creel v. Turner Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Creel v. Turner Bros., 54 S.E. 724, 125 Ga. 797, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 280 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

Where a suit was brought seeking to recover for a breach of an implied warranty of a horse, for a breach of an express written warranty by which it was agreed that $10 should be paid if the horse’s eye should go out, and on a general express warranty of the condition of the horse; and where, after a demurrer had been filed and the court had orally stated his opinion but had not formally entered any order, an amendment was made, dismissing the suit as to the express warranty for $10 and also as to the implied warranty, and electing to proceed for a recovery on the allegation of a general express warranty; and where both sides introduced evidence, and it appeared from the undisputed testimony "of both that there was no express warranty except that in reference to the $10, there was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant. Thompson v. Etowah Iron Co., 91 Ga. 538; Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Morel, 110 Ga. 321 (1); Watson v. Barnes, ante, 733.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.

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

Lumpkin, J.

Where a suit was brought seeking to recover for a breach of an implied warranty of a horse, for a breach of an express written warranty by which it was agreed that $10 should be paid if the horse’s eye should go out, and on a general express warranty of the condition of the horse; and where, after a demurrer had been filed and the court had orally stated his opinion but had not formally entered any order, an amendment was made, dismissing the suit as to the express warranty for $10 and also as to the implied warranty, and electing to proceed for a recovery on the allegation of a general express warranty; and where both sides introduced evidence, and it appeared from the undisputed testimony "of both that there was no express warranty except that in reference to the $10, there was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant. Thompson v. Etowah Iron Co., 91 Ga. 538; Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Morel, 110 Ga. 321 (1); Watson v. Barnes, ante, 733.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 S.E. 724, 125 Ga. 797, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/creel-v-turner-bros-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack