Grace v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grace v. State

136 S.E. 107, 36 Ga. App. 190, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 855

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1926

Docket17592

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 107 (Grace v. State) 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

Grace v. State, 136 S.E. 107, 36 Ga. App. 190, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 855 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where A offers to sell to B a bottle of whisky for a certain sum of money, and B agrees to buy it, and A thereupon delivers the whisky to B, the sale is completed. This is true although B, after tasting the whisky, hands it back to A and refuses to pay the agreed price for it, offering to pay a part thereof, where A refuses this offer and contends that B owes him the price agreed upon, and leaves the scene of the sale, insisting that B must pay him the full purchase-price of the whisky, and returns in about 25 minutes and shoots a pistol at B. See, in this connection, Carter v. State, 26 Ga. App. 253 (3), 255 (105 S. E. 652); Grimes v. State, 32 Ga. App. 541 (1) (123 S. E. 918).

2. The accused was tried under an accusation containing two counts. T'he first count charged the possession of whisky, and the second count charged the sale of whisky. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. This verdict meant that the accused was found guilty under both counts of the indictment. The evidence adduced demanded such a [191]*191finding, and, therefore, the alleged errors of omission in the charge of the court are immaterial.

Decided December 14, 1926. W. A. Dampier, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Merritt, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed. Luhe, J., concurs.

Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where A offers to sell to B a bottle of whisky for a certain sum of money, and B agrees to buy it, and A thereupon delivers the whisky to B, the sale is completed. This is true although B, after tasting the whisky, hands it back to A and refuses to pay the agreed price for it, offering to pay a part thereof, where A refuses this offer and contends that B owes him the price agreed upon, and leaves the scene of the sale, insisting that B must pay him the full purchase-price of the whisky, and returns in about 25 minutes and shoots a pistol at B. See, in this connection, Carter v. State, 26 Ga. App. 253 (3), 255 (105 S. E. 652); Grimes v. State, 32 Ga. App. 541 (1) (123 S. E. 918).

2. The accused was tried under an accusation containing two counts. T'he first count charged the possession of whisky, and the second count charged the sale of whisky. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. This verdict meant that the accused was found guilty under both counts of the indictment. The evidence adduced demanded such a [191]*191finding, and, therefore, the alleged errors of omission in the charge of the court are immaterial.

Decided December 14, 1926. W. A. Dampier, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Merritt, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed. Luhe, J., concurs.

Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 107, 36 Ga. App. 190, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grace-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack