Moore v. Smith

121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 491, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 3
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 15, 1924·No. 14779·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

Where the defense to a suit is based solely upon partial failure of consideration, before a verdict can legally be rendered giving the defendant the benefit of that defense he must show the extent to which the consideration failed; the evidence must present sufficient data upon Which to base such a verdict. Hunnicutl Co. v. Kane, 21 Ga. App. 665 (94 S. E. 821). The evidence in the present case failing to disclose any specific damage to the defendant, who for several months before he made complaint used the automobile for which the notes sued on were given, there was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. B. Q. Jachson, for plaintiff in error. Horton Brothers, Anderson, Rountree & Crenshaw, contra.

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

Moore v. Smith, 121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 491, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 3 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

121 S.E. 136 (Moore v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toole v. Brownlow & Sons Co.
259 S.E.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Holiday Homes, Inc. v. Bragg
208 S.E.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Coast Scopitone, Inc. v. Self
192 S.E.2d 513 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Anchor Sign Co. of Georgia, Inc. v. PS Heating & Air Conditioning Co.
186 S.E.2d 892 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)