Gossett & Son v. Bishop

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gossett & Son v. Bishop

75 S.E. 816, 11 Ga. App. 487, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 73

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 24, 1912·No. 3728·Published

Opinion

Russell, J.

The evidence being undisputed that the plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of section 1771 of the Civil Code (1910), relating to the registration of commercial fertilizers, before making the sale to the defendant, the verdict for the defendant was demanded; and the errors in the instructions to the jury, of which complaint is. made in the amended motion for new trial, are immaterial. Penal Code (1910), § 643; Zipperer v. Doyle, 124 Ga. 895 (53 S. E. 505).

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Zebulon — Judge Dupree. September 4, 1911.

E. M. Owen, William E. Beck, for plaintiff. J. T. Allen, contra.

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

Russell, J.

The evidence being undisputed that the plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of section 1771 of the Civil Code (1910), relating to the registration of commercial fertilizers, before making the sale to the defendant, the verdict for the defendant was demanded; and the errors in the instructions to the jury, of which complaint is. made in the amended motion for new trial, are immaterial. Penal Code (1910), § 643; Zipperer v. Doyle, 124 Ga. 895 (53 S. E. 505).

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Zebulon — Judge Dupree. September 4, 1911.

E. M. Owen, William E. Beck, for plaintiff. J. T. Allen, contra.

Gossett & Son v. Bishop, 75 S.E. 816, 11 Ga. App. 487, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 73 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

75 S.E. 816 (Gossett & Son v. Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related