Shaw Bros. v. Guthrie

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shaw Bros. v. Guthrie

89 S.E. 1054, 18 Ga. App. 528, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1098

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1916

Docket7407

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 1054 (Shaw Bros. v. Guthrie) 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

Shaw Bros. v. Guthrie, 89 S.E. 1054, 18 Ga. App. 528, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1098 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

This case came to this court once before, and on substantially the same testimony it was held that the judge erred in directing a verdict against the plaintiffs in error. “There were issues of fact in the present case which should have been submitted to a jury. Under the testimony introduced in behalf of the defendants they were entitled to set off against plaintiff’s demand whatever legal damages they had sustained by reason of the breach of the plaintiff’s warranty of title, excluding damages such as anticipated profits and the like, which are too speculative to be the basis of a recovery.” Shaw v. Guthrie, 14 Ga. App. 303 (80 S. E. 735); James v. John Flannery Co., 16 Ga. App. 639 (85 S. E. 942). The court-erred in directing a verdict.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hodges, J.

This case came to this court once before, and on substantially the same testimony it was held that the judge erred in directing a verdict against the plaintiffs in error. “There were issues of fact in the present case which should have been submitted to a jury. Under the testimony introduced in behalf of the defendants they were entitled to set off against plaintiff’s demand whatever legal damages they had sustained by reason of the breach of the plaintiff’s warranty of title, excluding damages such as anticipated profits and the like, which are too speculative to be the basis of a recovery.” Shaw v. Guthrie, 14 Ga. App. 303 (80 S. E. 735); James v. John Flannery Co., 16 Ga. App. 639 (85 S. E. 942). The court-erred in directing a verdict.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 1054, 18 Ga. App. 528, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-bros-v-guthrie-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack