Fallen v. Electric Appliance Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fallen v. Electric Appliance Co.

154 S.E. 915, 42 Ga. App. 96, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 245

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 26, 1930

Docket20196

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 S.E. 915 (Fallen v. Electric Appliance Co.) 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

Fallen v. Electric Appliance Co., 154 S.E. 915, 42 Ga. App. 96, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being a suit upon a note given for the purehase-price of personalty, where the defendant pleaded a total failure of consideration, and where it appeared from the evidence offered by the defendant that the property sold, which was an electrical refrigerator, would not serve the purpose of refrigeration, which was the use for which the property was intended, and there being no evidence that would authorize the inference that the property was totally worthless for any purpose, but, from the nature of the property itself as it appears from the uncontradicted evidence, an inference was demanded that it had some value and was not totally worthless for any purpose, and there being no data from which the jury could find to what extent the consideration had partially failed, the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the defendant’s plea, either as a plea of total failure of consideration or as one alleging a partial failure of consideration; and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Hardee v. Carter, 94 Ga. 482 (19 S. E. 715 ) ; Clegg-Ray Co. v. Indiana Scale Co., 125 Ga. 558 (54 S. E. 538) ; Felder v. Neeves, 36 Ga. App. 41 (135 S. E. 219); Colt Co. v. Armstead, 36 Ga. App. 64 (135 S. E. 317).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenloins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

This being a suit upon a note given for the purehase-price of personalty, where the defendant pleaded a total failure of consideration, and where it appeared from the evidence offered by the defendant that the property sold, which was an electrical refrigerator, would not serve the purpose of refrigeration, which was the use for which the property was intended, and there being no evidence that would authorize the inference that the property was totally worthless for any purpose, but, from the nature of the property itself as it appears from the uncontradicted evidence, an inference was demanded that it had some value and was not totally worthless for any purpose, and there being no data from which the jury could find to what extent the consideration had partially failed, the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the defendant’s plea, either as a plea of total failure of consideration or as one alleging a partial failure of consideration; and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Hardee v. Carter, 94 Ga. 482 (19 S. E. 715 ) ; Clegg-Ray Co. v. Indiana Scale Co., 125 Ga. 558 (54 S. E. 538) ; Felder v. Neeves, 36 Ga. App. 41 (135 S. E. 219); Colt Co. v. Armstead, 36 Ga. App. 64 (135 S. E. 317).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenloins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E. 915, 42 Ga. App. 96, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fallen-v-electric-appliance-co-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack