Denmead v. Glass

Supreme Court of Georgia

Denmead v. Glass

30 Ga. 637

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 30 Ga. 637 (Denmead v. Glass) 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

Denmead v. Glass, 30 Ga. 637 (Ga. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

To make a sale of goods, wares and merchandise, for the price of ten pounds sterling or upwards, good, under the [638]*638seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds, the buyer must accept of the part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain must be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such a contract, or the agents thereto lawfully authorized.

There has been no compliance with the statute in this case. The railroad, by which the flour was shipped, was not the agent of the purchaser, and if the goods were not received and accepted by Glass, Laws & Co., no right of action accrued to the plaintiff. (See Lloyd & Pulliam vs. Wright, Griffith & Co., 20 Ga. Rep., 574.)

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

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

To make a sale of goods, wares and merchandise, for the price of ten pounds sterling or upwards, good, under the [638]*638seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds, the buyer must accept of the part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain must be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such a contract, or the agents thereto lawfully authorized.

There has been no compliance with the statute in this case. The railroad, by which the flour was shipped, was not the agent of the purchaser, and if the goods were not received and accepted by Glass, Laws & Co., no right of action accrued to the plaintiff. (See Lloyd & Pulliam vs. Wright, Griffith & Co., 20 Ga. Rep., 574.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Ga. 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denmead-v-glass-ga-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack