McCord & Son v. Laidley & Co.

13 S.E. 509, 87 Ga. 221, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 133
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 8, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 S.E. 509 (McCord & Son v. Laidley & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCord & Son v. Laidley & Co., 13 S.E. 509, 87 Ga. 221, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 133 (Ga. 1891).

Opinion

Lumpkin, Justice.

The substantial facts of this case are stated in the head-note. The draft which Laidley & Co. drew on McCord & Son for the price of the car-load of bacon was payable on demand. This was entirely consistent with the contract between the parties that the bacon was to be paid for on arrival, and the draft, therefore, was not improperly drawn. The only mistake about it was, that it was presented for payment before the bacon arrived and was, therefore, presented too soon; but certainly this fact did not give to McCord & Son the right to repudiate the entire contract and refuse to accept and pay for the bacon when it did arrive. If a note payable at a future day should be given for the purchase of personal property to be delivered when the note was paid, and by mistake or inadvertence payment of the note was demanded before its maturity, all that the maker need do would be to decline payment and notify the other party that he must wait until the note became due before demanding payment thereof. The present case seems to be one entirely analogous to the one supposed. There is ample evidence to sustain the conclusion that simply because the draft ivas presented to McCord & Son before the bacon reached Augusta, they sought to repudiate and cancel the entire transaction ; and also that when the bacon did arrive, they were afforded an opportunity to accept and pay for it, which they refused to do. We see no reason, in view of these [223]*223facts, for setting aside this transaction, or denying to Laidley & Co. their right to recover what they lost by reason of the decline in bacon and the refusal of McCord & Son to comply with their contract.

The motion for a new trial contains various exceptions to the charges and refusals to charge of the court? but in none of them do we find any error requiring a new trial. It seems quite plain, from a careful examination of the record, that exact justice has been done in this case. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Felty v. Southern Flour & Grain Co.
78 S.E. 1074 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Castlen v. Marshburn
69 S.E. 317 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Columbia Improvement Co.
60 S.E. 279 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Mendel v. Miller & Sons
56 S.E. 88 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Davis Sulphur Ore Co. v. Atlanta Guano Co.
34 S.E. 1011 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.E. 509, 87 Ga. 221, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccord-son-v-laidley-co-ga-1891.