Krasner v. Western Newspaper Union

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Krasner v. Western Newspaper Union

198 S.E. 110, 58 Ga. App. 146, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 210

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 29, 1938

Docket26917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 S.E. 110 (Krasner v. Western Newspaper Union) 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

Krasner v. Western Newspaper Union, 198 S.E. 110, 58 Ga. App. 146, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 210 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

1. Where a contract for 3000 directories provided that half of the purchase-price would be paid in advance, $500 would be paid upon the delivery of the first 500 directories, and $950 paid upon the delivery of the second 500 directories, a delivery of the directories would not have to be made unless the payments provided in the contract were made contemporaneously therewith, the contract providing in effect “cash on delivery.” In such a contract, where a surety thereon agreed to guarantee the balance remaining due on the contract upon the completion of the delivery of the second 500 directories, and that should his principal fail to comply with the stipulations of the contract the surety would pay the balance due, upon the failure of the principal to pay for the books when they were offered to him the surety became liable on the contract.

2. Where the surety instructed the attorney for the manufacturer of the directories to consult with and carry on all transactions with his son, an officer of the principal corporation, and these transactions delayed the effort to enforce the collection of the balance due, the surety can not complain that there was a novation, and that his risk was so increased as to release him. There appears in the record no extension of time based cm a valuable consideration; and an instruction by the principal to the manufacturer to make an effort to sell the books that the principal could not pay for, and credit the proceeds on the amount due, would not amount to a novation of the original contract.

3. The evidence demanded a verdict for the plaintiff; and if there were any errors in the charge of the court, they were immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephetis, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

1. Where a contract for 3000 directories provided that half of the purchase-price would be paid in advance, $500 would be paid upon the delivery of the first 500 directories, and $950 paid upon the delivery of the second 500 directories, a delivery of the directories would not have to be made unless the payments provided in the contract were made contemporaneously therewith, the contract providing in effect “cash on delivery.” In such a contract, where a surety thereon agreed to guarantee the balance remaining due on the contract upon the completion of the delivery of the second 500 directories, and that should his principal fail to comply with the stipulations of the contract the surety would pay the balance due, upon the failure of the principal to pay for the books when they were offered to him the surety became liable on the contract.

2. Where the surety instructed the attorney for the manufacturer of the directories to consult with and carry on all transactions with his son, an officer of the principal corporation, and these transactions delayed the effort to enforce the collection of the balance due, the surety can not complain that there was a novation, and that his risk was so increased as to release him. There appears in the record no extension of time based cm a valuable consideration; and an instruction by the principal to the manufacturer to make an effort to sell the books that the principal could not pay for, and credit the proceeds on the amount due, would not amount to a novation of the original contract.

3. The evidence demanded a verdict for the plaintiff; and if there were any errors in the charge of the court, they were immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephetis, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E. 110, 58 Ga. App. 146, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krasner-v-western-newspaper-union-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack