Freeman v. Dunn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Freeman v. Dunn

107 S.E. 495, 27 Ga. App. 82, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 698

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1921

Docket12004

StatusPublished

This text of 107 S.E. 495 (Freeman v. Dunn) 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

Freeman v. Dunn, 107 S.E. 495, 27 Ga. App. 82, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

In a former decision of this court in this ease it was held that the original petition was not subject to general demurrer, and that the amendment offered, which is set forth in the report of the ease in 24 Ga. App. 504 (101 S. E. 393), was proper. This amendment, which was subsequently made, not having materially altered the nature of the cause of action as originally set forth, the renewed demurrer to the petition as amended must be controlled by the previous adjudication. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Waldo, 6 Ga. App. 840 (65 S. E. 1098). Whatever doubt there might have been as to whether the allegation of the .original petition, setting up a mutual and unconditional agreement of purchase and sale as to the entire shipment,- was or was not negatived by further disclosing the right on the part of the buyer to “ approve ” the first shipment as conforming in quality with the sample previously furnished, the amendment setting up the additional correspondence .plainly indicates a full and complete accord as to the purchase and sale, under these terms, of the entire shipment, for immediate delivery. The time for performance not being indefinite, since by the terms of the purchase the commodity was intended for immediate delivery, no further demand for shipment was necessary; and the petition was therefore not defective in failing to allege the exact dates of the various demands claimed to have been actually made.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

In a former decision of this court in this ease it was held that the original petition was not subject to general demurrer, and that the amendment offered, which is set forth in the report of the ease in 24 Ga. App. 504 (101 S. E. 393), was proper. This amendment, which was subsequently made, not having materially altered the nature of the cause of action as originally set forth, the renewed demurrer to the petition as amended must be controlled by the previous adjudication. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Waldo, 6 Ga. App. 840 (65 S. E. 1098). Whatever doubt there might have been as to whether the allegation of the .original petition, setting up a mutual and unconditional agreement of purchase and sale as to the entire shipment,- was or was not negatived by further disclosing the right on the part of the buyer to “ approve ” the first shipment as conforming in quality with the sample previously furnished, the amendment setting up the additional correspondence .plainly indicates a full and complete accord as to the purchase and sale, under these terms, of the entire shipment, for immediate delivery. The time for performance not being indefinite, since by the terms of the purchase the commodity was intended for immediate delivery, no further demand for shipment was necessary; and the petition was therefore not defective in failing to allege the exact dates of the various demands claimed to have been actually made.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 495, 27 Ga. App. 82, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-dunn-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack