Daniel Sons & Palmer Co. v. Dickey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Daniel Sons & Palmer Co. v. Dickey

65 S.E. 301, 6 Ga. App. 548, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 376

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1909

Docket1923

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 301 (Daniel Sons & Palmer Co. v. Dickey) 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

Daniel Sons & Palmer Co. v. Dickey, 65 S.E. 301, 6 Ga. App. 548, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 376 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The plaintiff had an account against one Burke. The defendant, desiring to make a certain trade with Burke, asked the plaintiff to credit Burke’s account with $27 and to charge that amount to him. The plaintiff accordingly credited Burke’s account with $27, released him from further liability to that extent, and charged the amount to the defendant. In the action which was brought to recover the $27 from the defendant, he set up the statute of frauds. Held, that the contract was an original undertaking, and not within the purview of the statute of frauds; and that it was not a nudum pactum, as the detriment suffered by the plaintiff in releasing Burke was a sufficient consideration. Ferst v. Bank of Waycross, 111 Ga. 229 (36 S. E. 773); Pylant v. Webb, 2 Ga. App. 171 (58 S. E. 329); Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921); Beard v. Hammock, 3 Ga. App. 118 (59 S. E. 335).

Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

The plaintiff had an account against one Burke. The defendant, desiring to make a certain trade with Burke, asked the plaintiff to credit Burke’s account with $27 and to charge that amount to him. The plaintiff accordingly credited Burke’s account with $27, released him from further liability to that extent, and charged the amount to the defendant. In the action which was brought to recover the $27 from the defendant, he set up the statute of frauds. Held, that the contract was an original undertaking, and not within the purview of the statute of frauds; and that it was not a nudum pactum, as the detriment suffered by the plaintiff in releasing Burke was a sufficient consideration. Ferst v. Bank of Waycross, 111 Ga. 229 (36 S. E. 773); Pylant v. Webb, 2 Ga. App. 171 (58 S. E. 329); Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921); Beard v. Hammock, 3 Ga. App. 118 (59 S. E. 335).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 301, 6 Ga. App. 548, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-sons-palmer-co-v-dickey-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack