Denson v. Battle Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Denson v. Battle Bros.

87 S.E. 842, 17 Ga. App. 575, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 793

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 3, 1916

Docket6482

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 842 (Denson v. Battle Bros.) 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

Denson v. Battle Bros., 87 S.E. 842, 17 Ga. App. 575, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The trial judge did not err in refusing to allow the proposed amendment to the defendant’s answer, setting up alleged false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiff in regard to the qualities of the horse in question, since the execution of the note which was the basis of the suit was'admitted, and in the note it was declared that the horse was sold without any warranty, either express or implied.

2. One of the defenses originally set up in the defendant’s answer contradicted and sought to supplant the writing signed by him, and the defense of rescission presented in the plea was demurrable because (among other reasons) no consideration for the alleged subsequent agreement was shown. Purser v. Rountree, 142 Ga. 836 (83 S. E. 958). In so far as the answer sought to allege fraud in the procurement of the note, it was defective and subject to the demurrer.

3. The court did not err in striking the entire answer and in thereafter directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. The trial judge did not err in refusing to allow the proposed amendment to the defendant’s answer, setting up alleged false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiff in regard to the qualities of the horse in question, since the execution of the note which was the basis of the suit was'admitted, and in the note it was declared that the horse was sold without any warranty, either express or implied.

2. One of the defenses originally set up in the defendant’s answer contradicted and sought to supplant the writing signed by him, and the defense of rescission presented in the plea was demurrable because (among other reasons) no consideration for the alleged subsequent agreement was shown. Purser v. Rountree, 142 Ga. 836 (83 S. E. 958). In so far as the answer sought to allege fraud in the procurement of the note, it was defective and subject to the demurrer.

3. The court did not err in striking the entire answer and in thereafter directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 842, 17 Ga. App. 575, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denson-v-battle-bros-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack