Georgia Supply Co. v. Coffee

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Supply Co. v. Coffee

69 S.E. 1083, 8 Ga. App. 502, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 9

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 17, 1911

Docket2710

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 1083 (Georgia Supply Co. v. Coffee) 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 Supply Co. v. Coffee, 69 S.E. 1083, 8 Ga. App. 502, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 9 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hiel, C. J.

1. The plea as amended set up facts that, if proved,, entitled tile defendants to a rescission of the contract, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer filed thereto. Civil Code (1895), §§ 3711-12.

2. Where a contract is made for the purchase of different articles of machinery which, taken together, constitute a working outfit, and the omission of any one of the articles renders the outfit useless, and the purchaser offers to pay a gross price for the entire outfit, the contract is entire, and a breach of it results from the failure to deliver any separate article of the machinery named. Where a breach is so caused, the purchaser has.the right to rescind the contract, on prompt notification [503]*503to the seller of the breach, and on returning, or offering to return, the article or articles which he has received. Harden v. Lang, 110 Ga. 392 (36 S. E. 100).

Decided January 17, 1911.

Complaint; from city court of Valdosta — Judge Cranford. May 6, 1910.

Woodward & Smith, O. M. Smith, for plaintiif in error. J. B. Walker, contra.

3. The instructions of the court specially complained of, and the refusal to instruct, when considered in connection with the entire charge, present no material error.

4. The evidence on the materia] issues was- in conflict; the verdict is approved by the trial court, and this court finds in the record no error to justify the grant of another trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hiel, C. J.

1. The plea as amended set up facts that, if proved,, entitled tile defendants to a rescission of the contract, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer filed thereto. Civil Code (1895), §§ 3711-12.

2. Where a contract is made for the purchase of different articles of machinery which, taken together, constitute a working outfit, and the omission of any one of the articles renders the outfit useless, and the purchaser offers to pay a gross price for the entire outfit, the contract is entire, and a breach of it results from the failure to deliver any separate article of the machinery named. Where a breach is so caused, the purchaser has.the right to rescind the contract, on prompt notification [503]*503to the seller of the breach, and on returning, or offering to return, the article or articles which he has received. Harden v. Lang, 110 Ga. 392 (36 S. E. 100).

Decided January 17, 1911.

Complaint; from city court of Valdosta — Judge Cranford. May 6, 1910.

Woodward & Smith, O. M. Smith, for plaintiif in error. J. B. Walker, contra.

3. The instructions of the court specially complained of, and the refusal to instruct, when considered in connection with the entire charge, present no material error.

4. The evidence on the materia] issues was- in conflict; the verdict is approved by the trial court, and this court finds in the record no error to justify the grant of another trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 1083, 8 Ga. App. 502, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-supply-co-v-coffee-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack