Moore v. Collier

Supreme Court of Georgia

Moore v. Collier

66 S.E. 1080, 133 Ga. 762, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 57

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 1080 (Moore v. Collier) 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

Moore v. Collier, 66 S.E. 1080, 133 Ga. 762, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 57 (Ga. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Holden, J.

1. Where the owner of real estate wrote a letter to another, stating the terms upon which he would exchange the property for a certain farm, and authorized the latter to “submit this proposition to the owner of the farm,” and one who held an option from the owner of the farm, but who was never himself the owner, wrote and signed on such letter an acceptance of the proposal, no contract to make the proposed exchange with the holder of the option binding on the one writing the letter was made. 9 Cyc. 255; Derrick v. Monette, 73 Ala. 75.

2. A contract which must, under the statute of frauds, be in writing, and which, accordingly, is put in writing and duly executed, can not be subsequently modified by a parol agreement. Augusta So. R. Co. v. Smith & Kilby Co., 106 Ga. 864 (33 S. E. 28) ; Hawkins v. Studdard, 132 Ga. 265 (63 S. E. 852).

3. The court committed no error in refusing to allow* the amendment offered by the plaintiff, or in dismissing the petition on the demurrer filed thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Holden, J.

1. Where the owner of real estate wrote a letter to another, stating the terms upon which he would exchange the property for a certain farm, and authorized the latter to “submit this proposition to the owner of the farm,” and one who held an option from the owner of the farm, but who was never himself the owner, wrote and signed on such letter an acceptance of the proposal, no contract to make the proposed exchange with the holder of the option binding on the one writing the letter was made. 9 Cyc. 255; Derrick v. Monette, 73 Ala. 75.

2. A contract which must, under the statute of frauds, be in writing, and which, accordingly, is put in writing and duly executed, can not be subsequently modified by a parol agreement. Augusta So. R. Co. v. Smith & Kilby Co., 106 Ga. 864 (33 S. E. 28) ; Hawkins v. Studdard, 132 Ga. 265 (63 S. E. 852).

3. The court committed no error in refusing to allow* the amendment offered by the plaintiff, or in dismissing the petition on the demurrer filed thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E. 1080, 133 Ga. 762, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-collier-ga-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack