Edenfield v. Coleman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Edenfield v. Coleman

73 S.E. 416, 10 Ga. App. 355, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 510

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1912

Docket3548

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 416 (Edenfield v. Coleman) 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

Edenfield v. Coleman, 73 S.E. 416, 10 Ga. App. 355, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

In a note given for the purchase-money of two mules the following guaranty was inserted: “It is expressly understood that after said delivery the said Coleman & Flanders do not warrant the health, soundness, or life of said mules, but only the title thereto, and in case of death thereof or loss in any way^ I agree to sustain the loss and to pay said note." In a suit on this note a plea alleging in effect that at the time of the sale and when the mules were delivered they were afflicted with an incurable disease, the character of which was not known to the defendant but was known to plaintiff, and from which 'disease the mules in question died in a few days after the sale, set forth a good defense, and was not in conflict with the well-established rule that parol testimony can not be received to vary the terms of a written contract. Pryor v. Ludden, 134 Ga. 288 (67 S. E. 654). The above guaranty protected the guarantor from any unsoundness or disease and death which might arise or occur after the sale was made and after delivery of the mules to the purchaser. It is not broad enough to protect the guarantor from any latent disease or unsoundness which existed prior to and at the time of the sale and the existence of which was known to the seller and unknown to the purchaser.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hill, C. J.

In a note given for the purchase-money of two mules the following guaranty was inserted: “It is expressly understood that after said delivery the said Coleman & Flanders do not warrant the health, soundness, or life of said mules, but only the title thereto, and in case of death thereof or loss in any way^ I agree to sustain the loss and to pay said note." In a suit on this note a plea alleging in effect that at the time of the sale and when the mules were delivered they were afflicted with an incurable disease, the character of which was not known to the defendant but was known to plaintiff, and from which 'disease the mules in question died in a few days after the sale, set forth a good defense, and was not in conflict with the well-established rule that parol testimony can not be received to vary the terms of a written contract. Pryor v. Ludden, 134 Ga. 288 (67 S. E. 654). The above guaranty protected the guarantor from any unsoundness or disease and death which might arise or occur after the sale was made and after delivery of the mules to the purchaser. It is not broad enough to protect the guarantor from any latent disease or unsoundness which existed prior to and at the time of the sale and the existence of which was known to the seller and unknown to the purchaser.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 416, 10 Ga. App. 355, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edenfield-v-coleman-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack