Joseph Costa Co. v. Hawkins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Joseph Costa Co. v. Hawkins

179 S.E. 159, 50 Ga. App. 626, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 250

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 22, 1935

Docket24146

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E. 159 (Joseph Costa Co. v. Hawkins) 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

Joseph Costa Co. v. Hawkins, 179 S.E. 159, 50 Ga. App. 626, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the inference that the plaintiff, in a suit to recover for labor and material alleged to have been furnished in making repairs upon property of the defendant, was a manufacturer of ice cream, which it sold and distributed to merchants, and that it furnished to the defendant, who was a merchant selling ice cream to the trade, an apparatus called a compressor, which was used by the defendant in connection with the defendant’s soda-fount in the handling and storage of ice cream furnished by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had contracted to keep the compressor in repair and to keep up the defendant’s soda-fount without cost to the defendant, and that also it was a universal custom of the trade for a manufacturer such as the plaintiff to do such work free of charge, that the amount sued for was for labor and material furnished by the plaintiff in repairing the compressor which it had furnished to the defendant, and in keeping the [627]*627defendant’s soda-fountain in repair, and that therefore the defendant was not indebted to the plaintiff.' The verdict for the defendant was authorized.

Decided February 22, 1935. B. G. Jenldns, D. D. Veal, for plaintiff. M. F. Adams, for defendant.

2. The plea which set up the defenses above indicated was good as against general demurrer.

3. The superior court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhms, P. J., a/nd Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the inference that the plaintiff, in a suit to recover for labor and material alleged to have been furnished in making repairs upon property of the defendant, was a manufacturer of ice cream, which it sold and distributed to merchants, and that it furnished to the defendant, who was a merchant selling ice cream to the trade, an apparatus called a compressor, which was used by the defendant in connection with the defendant’s soda-fount in the handling and storage of ice cream furnished by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had contracted to keep the compressor in repair and to keep up the defendant’s soda-fount without cost to the defendant, and that also it was a universal custom of the trade for a manufacturer such as the plaintiff to do such work free of charge, that the amount sued for was for labor and material furnished by the plaintiff in repairing the compressor which it had furnished to the defendant, and in keeping the [627]*627defendant’s soda-fountain in repair, and that therefore the defendant was not indebted to the plaintiff.' The verdict for the defendant was authorized.

Decided February 22, 1935. B. G. Jenldns, D. D. Veal, for plaintiff. M. F. Adams, for defendant.

2. The plea which set up the defenses above indicated was good as against general demurrer.

3. The superior court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhms, P. J., a/nd Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 159, 50 Ga. App. 626, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-costa-co-v-hawkins-gactapp-1935.