Dean v. Bateman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dean v. Bateman

77 S.E. 102, 12 Ga. App. 253, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 523

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 11, 1913

Docket4147

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 102 (Dean v. Bateman) 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

Dean v. Bateman, 77 S.E. 102, 12 Ga. App. 253, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Where, at the time of a sale, the vendee agreed with the vendor to pay the purchase-price to the vendor’s wife, there was no such privity of contract between the vendee and the wife as would authorize her to sue out an attachment for purchase-money. The suit might have been maintained by the husband for the use of his wife; but, as the open account for the purchase-price was never transferred in writing by the husband to his wife, she could neither maintain an attachment for the purchase-money, nor recover a general judgment on the account against the purchaser. Civil Code, § 3653.

2. Applying to the facts in the present ease the rule just stated, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded, and the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial. Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

1. Where, at the time of a sale, the vendee agreed with the vendor to pay the purchase-price to the vendor’s wife, there was no such privity of contract between the vendee and the wife as would authorize her to sue out an attachment for purchase-money. The suit might have been maintained by the husband for the use of his wife; but, as the open account for the purchase-price was never transferred in writing by the husband to his wife, she could neither maintain an attachment for the purchase-money, nor recover a general judgment on the account against the purchaser. Civil Code, § 3653.

2. Applying to the facts in the present ease the rule just stated, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded, and the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 102, 12 Ga. App. 253, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-bateman-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack