Keaton v. Birmingham Fertilizer Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Keaton v. Birmingham Fertilizer Co.

79 S.E. 754, 13 Ga. App. 645, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 288

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 28, 1913

Docket5020

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 S.E. 754 (Keaton v. Birmingham Fertilizer 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

Keaton v. Birmingham Fertilizer Co., 79 S.E. 754, 13 Ga. App. 645, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 288 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Where suit is brought on a note given for the purchase of commercial fertilizer, and the defense relied upon, based upon section 1774 of the Civil Code of 1910, was that the consideration in part of said note had failed because of a deficiency in the commercial value of the fertilizer for which the note was given, it is incumbent upon the defendant to establish such defense by evidence that the fertilizer was deficient in some or all of its ingredients as guaranteed and printed on the sacks, and that by reason of the deficiency the commercial value thereof had fallen three per cent, below its total commercial value. Cooper v. National Fertilizer Co., 132 Ga. 529 (64 S. E. 650). This deficiency in the commercial value of the fertilizer must be determined by a comparison with the official analysis of the State chemist.

2. The evidence in behalf of the defendant did not show any deficiency in any of the ingredients composing the’fertilizer for the purchase of which the note sued on was given, nor did it show that the actual commercial value of the fertilizer was less than three per cent, of its total guaranteed commercial value. A verdict for the plaintiff was therefore properly directed. Judgment affirmed.

Pottle, J., disqualified.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. Where suit is brought on a note given for the purchase of commercial fertilizer, and the defense relied upon, based upon section 1774 of the Civil Code of 1910, was that the consideration in part of said note had failed because of a deficiency in the commercial value of the fertilizer for which the note was given, it is incumbent upon the defendant to establish such defense by evidence that the fertilizer was deficient in some or all of its ingredients as guaranteed and printed on the sacks, and that by reason of the deficiency the commercial value thereof had fallen three per cent, below its total commercial value. Cooper v. National Fertilizer Co., 132 Ga. 529 (64 S. E. 650). This deficiency in the commercial value of the fertilizer must be determined by a comparison with the official analysis of the State chemist.

2. The evidence in behalf of the defendant did not show any deficiency in any of the ingredients composing the’fertilizer for the purchase of which the note sued on was given, nor did it show that the actual commercial value of the fertilizer was less than three per cent, of its total guaranteed commercial value. A verdict for the plaintiff was therefore properly directed. Judgment affirmed.

Pottle, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 754, 13 Ga. App. 645, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keaton-v-birmingham-fertilizer-co-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack