Daniel Sons & Palmer Co. v. Dickey

65 S.E. 301, 6 Ga. App. 548, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 376
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 31, 1909·No. 1923·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

65 S.E. 301 (Daniel Sons & Palmer Co. v. Dickey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Graham v. Nash Loan Co.
181 S.E. 105 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Williams v. Garrison
93 S.E. 510 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Oglesby v. South Georgia Grocery Co.
89 S.E. 436 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Hicks v. Walker
87 S.E. 152 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)