Green & Son v. Kell Co.

124 S.E. 60, 32 Ga. App. 498, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 499
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1924
Docket15594
StatusPublished

This text of 124 S.E. 60 (Green & Son v. Kell Co.) 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
Green & Son v. Kell Co., 124 S.E. 60, 32 Ga. App. 498, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 499 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant admitted the account sued upon but denied that he owed the entire amount, since he had been specially damaged on account of a breach of contract by the plaintiff. The defendant’s cross-petition, however, contained no allegation of general damages and no prayer for nominal damages, and, the evidence failing to show that the alleged special damages were recoverable, the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of principal and interest sued for. See, in this connection, George B. Curd Co. v. Meigs Lumber &c. Co., 25 Ga. App. 504 (103 S. E. 740), and citations.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloochoorth, JJ., concur.

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

Related

George B. Curd Co. v. Meigs Lumber & Manufacturing Co.
103 S.E. 740 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 S.E. 60, 32 Ga. App. 498, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-son-v-kell-co-gactapp-1924.