National Novelty Import Co. v. Bowen & Fine

Court of Appeals of Georgia

National Novelty Import Co. v. Bowen & Fine

108 S.E. 473, 27 Ga. App. 377, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 908

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 27, 1921

Docket11817

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 473 (National Novelty Import Co. v. Bowen & Fine) 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

National Novelty Import Co. v. Bowen & Fine, 108 S.E. 473, 27 Ga. App. 377, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 908 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. This being a suit to recover the contract price for a lot of merchandise alleged by the plaintiff to have been sold and shipped to the defendant, and it appearing that the contract entered into between the parties was entire and not severable, and there being evidence in support of the defendant’s plea that part of the goods delivered to him by the plaintiff were materially different from the goods contracted for, and that the defendant upon discovering this fact immediately canceled the contract and returned the entire shipment of goods to the plaintiff, less an amount sufficient to reimburse the defendant for freight charges on the goods expended by him and chargeable to the plaintiff, the verdict for the defendant was authorized. Main v. Simmons, 2 Ga. App. 821 (59 S. E. 85); Elgin Jewelry Co. v. Estes, 122 Ga. 807 (50 S. E. 939); Snellgrove v. Dingelhoef, 25 Ga. App. 334 (103 S. E. 418).

2. The court did not err in refusing to strike the defendant’s plea or in instructions to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur. Kirkland & Kirkland, for plaintiff. C. W. Turner, for defendants.

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

Stephens, J.

1. This being a suit to recover the contract price for a lot of merchandise alleged by the plaintiff to have been sold and shipped to the defendant, and it appearing that the contract entered into between the parties was entire and not severable, and there being evidence in support of the defendant’s plea that part of the goods delivered to him by the plaintiff were materially different from the goods contracted for, and that the defendant upon discovering this fact immediately canceled the contract and returned the entire shipment of goods to the plaintiff, less an amount sufficient to reimburse the defendant for freight charges on the goods expended by him and chargeable to the plaintiff, the verdict for the defendant was authorized. Main v. Simmons, 2 Ga. App. 821 (59 S. E. 85); Elgin Jewelry Co. v. Estes, 122 Ga. 807 (50 S. E. 939); Snellgrove v. Dingelhoef, 25 Ga. App. 334 (103 S. E. 418).

2. The court did not err in refusing to strike the defendant’s plea or in instructions to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur. Kirkland & Kirkland, for plaintiff. C. W. Turner, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 473, 27 Ga. App. 377, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-novelty-import-co-v-bowen-fine-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack