Kilpatrick v. Southern Crate & Veneer Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kilpatrick v. Southern Crate & Veneer Co.

167 S.E. 320, 46 Ga. App. 225, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 120

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 31, 1932

Docket22385

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 320 (Kilpatrick v. Southern Crate & Veneer 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

Kilpatrick v. Southern Crate & Veneer Co., 167 S.E. 320, 46 Ga. App. 225, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooper, J.

The plea and answer of the defendant to this action upon a promissory note alleged, substantially, that the note represented the purchase-price of 12000 crates bought by defendant from plaintiff for the purpose of packing peaches therein; that instead of being the usual and customary ■ standard peach crates, they were in fact tomato crates with undersized cups; that “defendant had great difficulty in packing his peaches so that the crates would have what is known in the trade as a bulge pack;” that defendant “received the first 6000 of said crates with said undersized cups; that his peaches were reported as being too low and the crates not filled; and that by the use of said cups so furnished by this plaintiff, which defect was not easily discernible to the eye, . . he was damaged in the sum of $2000.” Said damages are alleged to represent a loss of 50 cents per crate suffered by defendant because the said crates “prevented this defendant from securing the bulge pack necessary to secure the market price for said peaches so packed.” Held: Even should it be ruled in this ease (as this court is not willing to do) that said plea and answer sufficiently alleged a breach of warranty by the plaintiff which could be pleaded in abatement of the purchase-price by the defendant (Civil Code of 1910, § 4136), the special damages sought to be recovered by the defendant, which were in excess of the amount of the note sued upon, are not recoverable (Civil Code, § 4395) ; and, no general or nominal damages being sought, the trial judge did not err in striking said plea and answer, on demurrer. See Christophulos Café Co. v. Phillips, 4 Ga. App. 819 (62 S. E. 562), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs. Broyles, C. J., concurs in the judgment.

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

Hooper, J.

The plea and answer of the defendant to this action upon a promissory note alleged, substantially, that the note represented the purchase-price of 12000 crates bought by defendant from plaintiff for the purpose of packing peaches therein; that instead of being the usual and customary ■ standard peach crates, they were in fact tomato crates with undersized cups; that “defendant had great difficulty in packing his peaches so that the crates would have what is known in the trade as a bulge pack;” that defendant “received the first 6000 of said crates with said undersized cups; that his peaches were reported as being too low and the crates not filled; and that by the use of said cups so furnished by this plaintiff, which defect was not easily discernible to the eye, . . he was damaged in the sum of $2000.” Said damages are alleged to represent a loss of 50 cents per crate suffered by defendant because the said crates “prevented this defendant from securing the bulge pack necessary to secure the market price for said peaches so packed.” Held: Even should it be ruled in this ease (as this court is not willing to do) that said plea and answer sufficiently alleged a breach of warranty by the plaintiff which could be pleaded in abatement of the purchase-price by the defendant (Civil Code of 1910, § 4136), the special damages sought to be recovered by the defendant, which were in excess of the amount of the note sued upon, are not recoverable (Civil Code, § 4395) ; and, no general or nominal damages being sought, the trial judge did not err in striking said plea and answer, on demurrer. See Christophulos Café Co. v. Phillips, 4 Ga. App. 819 (62 S. E. 562), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs. Broyles, C. J., concurs in the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 320, 46 Ga. App. 225, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilpatrick-v-southern-crate-veneer-co-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack