Georgia-Alabama Power Co. v. Fields

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia-Alabama Power Co. v. Fields

132 S.E. 104, 35 Ga. App. 128, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 582

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 25, 1926

Docket16510

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 S.E. 104 (Georgia-Alabama Power Co. v. Fields) 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

Georgia-Alabama Power Co. v. Fields, 132 S.E. 104, 35 Ga. App. 128, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Properly construed, the alleged contract is to the following effect: Mrs. W. Y. Fields conveys to Joseph S. Davis the water rights and privileges appertaining to land lots 291 and 288, as particularly described, and also agrees to accept from Joseph S. Davis $12 per acre as compensation for any damage to the described lands of Mrs. W. Y. Fields caused by the overflow of water resulting from the erection of the dam, for and in consideration of the payment to her by Joseph S. Davis of $100 cash, representing the value of the water rights and privileges conveyed, and a promise by Joseph S. Davis to convey to Mrs. W. Y. Fields seven shares of the capital stock when the company to develop the water-power is organized. Whether or not this agreement constitutes a contract or merely an offer by Mrs. W. V. Fields, her offer was accepted by Joseph S. Davis by the delivery to her and the acceptance by her of the stock described in the contract. The court therefore erred in striking the defendant’s plea and finding in favor of the plaintiff in an amount larger than that due under the terms of the contract.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Properly construed, the alleged contract is to the following effect: Mrs. W. Y. Fields conveys to Joseph S. Davis the water rights and privileges appertaining to land lots 291 and 288, as particularly described, and also agrees to accept from Joseph S. Davis $12 per acre as compensation for any damage to the described lands of Mrs. W. Y. Fields caused by the overflow of water resulting from the erection of the dam, for and in consideration of the payment to her by Joseph S. Davis of $100 cash, representing the value of the water rights and privileges conveyed, and a promise by Joseph S. Davis to convey to Mrs. W. Y. Fields seven shares of the capital stock when the company to develop the water-power is organized. Whether or not this agreement constitutes a contract or merely an offer by Mrs. W. V. Fields, her offer was accepted by Joseph S. Davis by the delivery to her and the acceptance by her of the stock described in the contract. The court therefore erred in striking the defendant’s plea and finding in favor of the plaintiff in an amount larger than that due under the terms of the contract.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 104, 35 Ga. App. 128, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-alabama-power-co-v-fields-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack