Hayslip v. Fields

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hayslip v. Fields

82 S.E. 441, 142 Ga. 49, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 260

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 S.E. 441 (Hayslip v. Fields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayslip v. Fields, 82 S.E. 441, 142 Ga. 49, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 260 (Ga. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1. There was no error in sustaining a demurrer to the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth paragraphs of the defendant’s answer, as to allegations of representations made by the seller of goods as to their value, etc., in the absence of fraud and want of opportunity for the purchaser to examine for himself. Castleberry v. Scandrett, 20 Ga. 242; Falkner v. Lane, 58 Ga. 116; Baldwin v. Daniel, 69 Ga. 783 (6 a); Martin v. Harwell, 115 Ga. 156 (3), 159 (41 S. E. 686).

2. The presiding judge corrected certain errors in the verdict, by requiring the plaintiff to write off a specified amount in order to prevent the grant of a new trial; and counsel for the plaintiff in error did not, in his brief, insist on assignments of error other than those controlled by the preceding rulings. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fish, C. J.

1. There was no error in sustaining a demurrer to the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth paragraphs of the defendant’s answer, as to allegations of representations made by the seller of goods as to their value, etc., in the absence of fraud and want of opportunity for the purchaser to examine for himself. Castleberry v. Scandrett, 20 Ga. 242; Falkner v. Lane, 58 Ga. 116; Baldwin v. Daniel, 69 Ga. 783 (6 a); Martin v. Harwell, 115 Ga. 156 (3), 159 (41 S. E. 686).

2. The presiding judge corrected certain errors in the verdict, by requiring the plaintiff to write off a specified amount in order to prevent the grant of a new trial; and counsel for the plaintiff in error did not, in his brief, insist on assignments of error other than those controlled by the preceding rulings. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 441, 142 Ga. 49, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayslip-v-fields-ga-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack