Rose v. Taylor, Lowenstein & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rose v. Taylor, Lowenstein & Co.

106 S.E. 922, 26 Ga. App. 700, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 598

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1921

Docket11808

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 922 (Rose v. Taylor, Lowenstein & 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

Rose v. Taylor, Lowenstein & Co., 106 S.E. 922, 26 Ga. App. 700, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 598 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The language of the contract, fixing the price of turpentine according to its quoted value on the tenth day after notice to furnish tank cars had been given, must, in our opinion, not only be taken as the measure of damages for any negligent failure to promptly furnish the fears, but must also be taken and construed as an agreement fixing the price of the turpentine in accordance with the conditions and emergencies causing delays for which defendants might not be in any way responsible. While in some cases the market price based upon such ten-days period might be favorable to the defendants, it is just as likely that such an agreement would operate in favor of the plaintiffs. It is not alleged that the delay in furnishing the car was occasioned by any fraud, or even by negligence, of the defendants, and it may have resulted from the act of some third party. So far as the record discloses, the situation arising from the delayed arrival of the car was simply such as was naturally to be anticipated, and as appears to have been in the minds of the parties when the agreement was entered upon.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Mill, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The language of the contract, fixing the price of turpentine according to its quoted value on the tenth day after notice to furnish tank cars had been given, must, in our opinion, not only be taken as the measure of damages for any negligent failure to promptly furnish the fears, but must also be taken and construed as an agreement fixing the price of the turpentine in accordance with the conditions and emergencies causing delays for which defendants might not be in any way responsible. While in some cases the market price based upon such ten-days period might be favorable to the defendants, it is just as likely that such an agreement would operate in favor of the plaintiffs. It is not alleged that the delay in furnishing the car was occasioned by any fraud, or even by negligence, of the defendants, and it may have resulted from the act of some third party. So far as the record discloses, the situation arising from the delayed arrival of the car was simply such as was naturally to be anticipated, and as appears to have been in the minds of the parties when the agreement was entered upon.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Mill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 922, 26 Ga. App. 700, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-taylor-lowenstein-co-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack