Hall v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hall v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co.

76 S.E. 597, 11 Ga. App. 840, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 212

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 10, 1912

Docket4369

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 597 (Hall v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine 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

Hall v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 76 S.E. 597, 11 Ga. App. 840, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 212 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

Where suit was brought on a promissory note given for the purchase-price of a threshing machine which was known by the purchaser to be defective, it was not error to strike a plea setting up that at the time the note was given, the plaintiff promised to remedy the defects; that it neglected to do so until after the expiration of the threshing season, during which time, by reason of plaintiff’s failure to comply with its promise, defendant lost a sum greatly in excess of the amount of the note, by way of profits which he would have received from threshing grain for hire had the machine been promptly put in good working order. Civil Code (1910), § 4394; Willingham v. Hooven, 74 Ga. 233 (58 Am. Rep. 435); Jester v. Bainbridge Bank, 4 Ga. App. 469 (61 S. E. 926). Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

Where suit was brought on a promissory note given for the purchase-price of a threshing machine which was known by the purchaser to be defective, it was not error to strike a plea setting up that at the time the note was given, the plaintiff promised to remedy the defects; that it neglected to do so until after the expiration of the threshing season, during which time, by reason of plaintiff’s failure to comply with its promise, defendant lost a sum greatly in excess of the amount of the note, by way of profits which he would have received from threshing grain for hire had the machine been promptly put in good working order. Civil Code (1910), § 4394; Willingham v. Hooven, 74 Ga. 233 (58 Am. Rep. 435); Jester v. Bainbridge Bank, 4 Ga. App. 469 (61 S. E. 926). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 597, 11 Ga. App. 840, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-j-i-case-threshing-machine-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack