International Filter Co. v. LaGrange Ice & Fuel Co.

95 S.E. 736, 22 Ga. App. 167, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 216
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 10, 1918
Docket9068
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 736 (International Filter Co. v. LaGrange Ice & Fuel 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
International Filter Co. v. LaGrange Ice & Fuel Co., 95 S.E. 736, 22 Ga. App. 167, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. Where, under a contract of sale or return, it is provided that “this filter and unused disks are to be returned for credit in good condition to the International Filter Co., at Chicago, within thirty-five, days froni this date, if directions for use are followed and the results obtained are not satisfactory,” the return must be made within the time thus expressly limited, and the question of reasonable time doe's not enter. Newburger v. Hoyt, 86 Ga. 508, 514 (12 S. E. 925).

2. A mere notice by the purchaser, given prior to the expiration' of the time limit, that the machine had proved unsatisfactory, and that unless [168]*168better results could be had it would be returned, can not be taken as a compliance with the terms of the contract. Dickey v. Winston Cigarette Machine Co., 117 Ca. 131 (43 S. E. 493); Malsby v. Young, 104 Ga. 205 (30 S. E. 854).

Decided April 10, 1918. Complaint; from city court of LaGrange—Judge Harwell. July 12, 1917. B. II: Ilill, Moon &. Davis, for plaintiff. M. U. Mooty, for defendant.

3. It appearing that a period of forty-two days had elapsed between the date of the contract and the date when the machinery was returned,, and there being nothing in- the record as presented to us to indicate, expressly or. by implication, that the limitation imposed by the, contract had been in any way extended, upon its expiration the rights of the parties became fixed.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, C. J., and Duke, J., concur.

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

Related

Singer Co. v. Gray & Son
129 S.E. 555 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Young-Jones Hardware Co. v. Dewey
106 S.E. 593 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E. 736, 22 Ga. App. 167, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-filter-co-v-lagrange-ice-fuel-co-gactapp-1918.