Newman v. Colt Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Newman v. Colt Co.

110 S.E. 321, 28 Ga. App. 58, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 476

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 17, 1921

Docket12850

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 321 (Newman v. Colt Co.) 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

Newman v. Colt Co., 110 S.E. 321, 28 Ga. App. 58, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 476 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where one who has entered into a binding written agreement to buy and pay for certain goods notifies the seller, prior to the delivery of the goods, that he will not. accept and pay for them if [59]*59tendered, the seller may refuse to agree to a rescission of the contract, and, if the buyer thereafter refuses to take and pay for the goods when tendered to him in accordance with the terms of the contract, the seller may, under the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 4131, store the goods for the use and benefit of the defaulting buyer and sue for the entire purchase-price. Dunaway v. Colt Co., 26 Ga. App. 554 (106 S. E. 599), and citations.

Decided January 17, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Richmond county — Judge Black. July 29, 1921.

P. H. Rowe, for plaintiff in error. William T. Gary, Alexander & Lee, contra.

(a) The evidence in the instant case was sufficient to authorize a finding that the identical goods shipped to and refused by the buyer were stored for his benefit by the seller, and that they were being held by the seller for the buyer at the time of the trial of the case.

2. It is well settled, by repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, that an assignment of error upon the refusal of the trial court to award a nonsuit will not be considered, where the case proceeded to verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s bill of exceptions complains also of the overruling of a motion for a new trial which contains the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where one who has entered into a binding written agreement to buy and pay for certain goods notifies the seller, prior to the delivery of the goods, that he will not. accept and pay for them if [59]*59tendered, the seller may refuse to agree to a rescission of the contract, and, if the buyer thereafter refuses to take and pay for the goods when tendered to him in accordance with the terms of the contract, the seller may, under the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 4131, store the goods for the use and benefit of the defaulting buyer and sue for the entire purchase-price. Dunaway v. Colt Co., 26 Ga. App. 554 (106 S. E. 599), and citations.

Decided January 17, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Richmond county — Judge Black. July 29, 1921.

P. H. Rowe, for plaintiff in error. William T. Gary, Alexander & Lee, contra.

(a) The evidence in the instant case was sufficient to authorize a finding that the identical goods shipped to and refused by the buyer were stored for his benefit by the seller, and that they were being held by the seller for the buyer at the time of the trial of the case.

2. It is well settled, by repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, that an assignment of error upon the refusal of the trial court to award a nonsuit will not be considered, where the case proceeded to verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s bill of exceptions complains also of the overruling of a motion for a new trial which contains the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 321, 28 Ga. App. 58, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-colt-co-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack