Smith Motor-Car Co. v. Goddard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith Motor-Car Co. v. Goddard

156 S.E. 724, 42 Ga. App. 560, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 52

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 19, 1931

Docket20613

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 724 (Smith Motor-Car Co. v. Goddard) 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

Smith Motor-Car Co. v. Goddard, 156 S.E. 724, 42 Ga. App. 560, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Wliile a contract made on Sunday in furtherance of work of the ordinary calling of one of the contracting parties can not be enforced by him, still if goods are sold on Sunday, and the purchaser thereafter, on a secular day, promises to pay for them, meantime retaining and using the articles furnished, the continued use of the property furnishes a sufficient consideration for the new promise, and the promisor is bound thereby. See, in this connection, Jones v. Belle Isle, [561]*56113 Ga. App. 437, 438 (79 S. E. 357). Thus, where, as in the instant ease, automobile tires were furnished on Sunday to the minor son of the defendant, who stated that his father had sent him for the tires, and there was evidence that the father thereafter, on a secular day, promised to pay for the tires, and evidence from which the jury would have been authorized to find that«the father retained and used the tires, even though the contract made on Sunday be treated as void (see Williams v. State, 167 Ga. 160, 144 S. E. 745), under the foregoing ruling a verdict in favor of the seller and against the father would have been authorized, and it was error to grant a nonsuit.

Decided January 19, 1931. Harris & Hams, for plaintiff. Porter & Mebane, for defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens amd Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

Wliile a contract made on Sunday in furtherance of work of the ordinary calling of one of the contracting parties can not be enforced by him, still if goods are sold on Sunday, and the purchaser thereafter, on a secular day, promises to pay for them, meantime retaining and using the articles furnished, the continued use of the property furnishes a sufficient consideration for the new promise, and the promisor is bound thereby. See, in this connection, Jones v. Belle Isle, [561]*56113 Ga. App. 437, 438 (79 S. E. 357). Thus, where, as in the instant ease, automobile tires were furnished on Sunday to the minor son of the defendant, who stated that his father had sent him for the tires, and there was evidence that the father thereafter, on a secular day, promised to pay for the tires, and evidence from which the jury would have been authorized to find that«the father retained and used the tires, even though the contract made on Sunday be treated as void (see Williams v. State, 167 Ga. 160, 144 S. E. 745), under the foregoing ruling a verdict in favor of the seller and against the father would have been authorized, and it was error to grant a nonsuit.

Decided January 19, 1931. Harris & Hams, for plaintiff. Porter & Mebane, for defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens amd Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 724, 42 Ga. App. 560, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-motor-car-co-v-goddard-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack