Mulherin v. Sabel & Rothschilds

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mulherin v. Sabel & Rothschilds

100 S.E. 719, 24 Ga. App. 304, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 592

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 20, 1919

Docket10573

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.E. 719 (Mulherin v. Sabel & Rothschilds) 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

Mulherin v. Sabel & Rothschilds, 100 S.E. 719, 24 Ga. App. 304, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

The petition in this case set out substantially tha' by telegrams and letters exchanged between the parties (copies of which were attached to the petition) the defendant entered into a contract to sell a described engine to the plaintiffs for the price of $350; and the only question raised by the general demurrer of the defendant was whether the plaintiffs waited too long,—an unreasonable time,—in accepting his offer of sale, his letter being dated April 22,1918, and mailed at Augusta, Georgia, to the plaintiffs at Jacksonville, Florida, and the answer by wire being dated April 24, 1918, Jacksonville, Florida. Under the allegations of the petition it was a question of fact, for the jury to determine, whether or not the answer by wire was made within a reasonable time. The court therefore did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Smith, J.

The petition in this case set out substantially tha' by telegrams and letters exchanged between the parties (copies of which were attached to the petition) the defendant entered into a contract to sell a described engine to the plaintiffs for the price of $350; and the only question raised by the general demurrer of the defendant was whether the plaintiffs waited too long,—an unreasonable time,—in accepting his offer of sale, his letter being dated April 22,1918, and mailed at Augusta, Georgia, to the plaintiffs at Jacksonville, Florida, and the answer by wire being dated April 24, 1918, Jacksonville, Florida. Under the allegations of the petition it was a question of fact, for the jury to determine, whether or not the answer by wire was made within a reasonable time. The court therefore did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 719, 24 Ga. App. 304, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulherin-v-sabel-rothschilds-gactapp-1919.