Kent v. Kennett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kent v. Kennett

74 S.E. 1002, 11 Ga. App. 176, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 315

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1912

Docket4046, 4047

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 1002 (Kent v. Kennett) 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

Kent v. Kennett, 74 S.E. 1002, 11 Ga. App. 176, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 315 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinions

Pottle, J.

This being an action to recover the agreed price of a lot of household furniture, sold under an entire contract, and it appearing, from the testimony offered by the defendant in support of his plea of failure of consideration, that no complaint was made in reference to quality until several months after delivery and until a large portion of the goods had been resold at retail, and there being no sufficient data furnished by the evidence to prove the extent to which the consideration had failed, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that the goods were bought by sample (Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Turpin, 126 Ga. 677, 55 S. E. 925), and of the absence of affirmative evidence that the goods delivered were not equal in quality to the sample, and of the uncertain and indefinite character of the evidence in other respects, the mere opinion of the defendant, that the goods were worth only 15-per cent, of the price contracted to be paid, did not entitle him to an abatement of the purchase-price.

As the defendant was in no event entitled to prevail, the ruling to which exception is taken by the plaintiff, allowing an amendment to the plea, becomes immaterial.

Judgment on the main hill of exceptions affirmed; cross-hill dismissed.

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

Pottle, J.

This being an action to recover the agreed price of a lot of household furniture, sold under an entire contract, and it appearing, from the testimony offered by the defendant in support of his plea of failure of consideration, that no complaint was made in reference to quality until several months after delivery and until a large portion of the goods had been resold at retail, and there being no sufficient data furnished by the evidence to prove the extent to which the consideration had failed, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that the goods were bought by sample (Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Turpin, 126 Ga. 677, 55 S. E. 925), and of the absence of affirmative evidence that the goods delivered were not equal in quality to the sample, and of the uncertain and indefinite character of the evidence in other respects, the mere opinion of the defendant, that the goods were worth only 15-per cent, of the price contracted to be paid, did not entitle him to an abatement of the purchase-price.

As the defendant was in no event entitled to prevail, the ruling to which exception is taken by the plaintiff, allowing an amendment to the plea, becomes immaterial.

Judgment on the main hill of exceptions affirmed; cross-hill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 1002, 11 Ga. App. 176, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-kennett-gactapp-1912.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack