Mason v. Farmers Cotton Oil Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mason v. Farmers Cotton Oil Co.

116 S.E. 123, 29 Ga. App. 418, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 7, 1923

Docket13431

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 123 (Mason v. Farmers Cotton Oil 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

Mason v. Farmers Cotton Oil Co., 116 S.E. 123, 29 Ga. App. 418, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

While the plaintiff vendor testified that he had sold the property to the vendee for cash, and elsewhere denied that he had agreed that the vendee might resell the cottonseed, he further testified: “ He was to pay me the day the seed arrived at Americus. Mr. Walker (the vendee) told me he had them sold for cash, and that the parties were going to pay him when they were delivered; and when they paid him for the seed he would send me the money, and he was to pay me for them that day. That was my agreement with Mr. Walker.” Hnder the rule that “the testimony of a party who offers himself as a witness in his own behalf is to be construed most strongly against him, when it is self-contradictory, vague, or equivocal” (Hogan v. Gilbert, 27 Ga. App. 444 (3), 108 S. E. 625, and cases cited), the plaintiff’s own evidence as to the authority of the vendee to make a resale [420]*420defeated his right of recovery against the defendant, who, the uncontradicted evidence shows, was a bona fide purchaser without notice of any understanding between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s vendee.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

While the plaintiff vendor testified that he had sold the property to the vendee for cash, and elsewhere denied that he had agreed that the vendee might resell the cottonseed, he further testified: “ He was to pay me the day the seed arrived at Americus. Mr. Walker (the vendee) told me he had them sold for cash, and that the parties were going to pay him when they were delivered; and when they paid him for the seed he would send me the money, and he was to pay me for them that day. That was my agreement with Mr. Walker.” Hnder the rule that “the testimony of a party who offers himself as a witness in his own behalf is to be construed most strongly against him, when it is self-contradictory, vague, or equivocal” (Hogan v. Gilbert, 27 Ga. App. 444 (3), 108 S. E. 625, and cases cited), the plaintiff’s own evidence as to the authority of the vendee to make a resale [420]*420defeated his right of recovery against the defendant, who, the uncontradicted evidence shows, was a bona fide purchaser without notice of any understanding between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s vendee.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 123, 29 Ga. App. 418, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-farmers-cotton-oil-co-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack