Fulcher v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fulcher v. Moore

71 S.E. 1030, 9 Ga. App. 624, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 264

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 4, 1911

Docket3397

StatusPublished

This text of 71 S.E. 1030 (Fulcher v. Moore) 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

Fulcher v. Moore, 71 S.E. 1030, 9 Ga. App. 624, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 264 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

M. sold F. a mule, and took a note for $190 for the purchase-money, reserving title. The mule proving unsatisfactory, F. brought it back and got a horse from M., for which he agreed to give $20 more. A new note, for the purchase-money of the horse, was drawn and turned over to F. for execution; he agreeing to have it executed by himself and another as security. F. never executed the note, but kept the horse. M. sued out an attachment for the purchase-money of the horse. F. defended on the ground that he did not owe for the horse, as he had exchanged the mule for it, and that the plaintiff’s only remedy was to attach the mule, which had been returned to him when the trade was 'rescinded, but offered no evidence. He,Id, that the defense was palpably frivolous, and that the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor is demanded.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

M. sold F. a mule, and took a note for $190 for the purchase-money, reserving title. The mule proving unsatisfactory, F. brought it back and got a horse from M., for which he agreed to give $20 more. A new note, for the purchase-money of the horse, was drawn and turned over to F. for execution; he agreeing to have it executed by himself and another as security. F. never executed the note, but kept the horse. M. sued out an attachment for the purchase-money of the horse. F. defended on the ground that he did not owe for the horse, as he had exchanged the mule for it, and that the plaintiff’s only remedy was to attach the mule, which had been returned to him when the trade was 'rescinded, but offered no evidence. He,Id, that the defense was palpably frivolous, and that the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor is demanded.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 1030, 9 Ga. App. 624, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulcher-v-moore-gactapp-1911.