Smith v. Roddenbery Hardware Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Roddenbery Hardware Co.

100 S.E. 718, 24 Ga. App. 306, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 595

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 20, 1919

Docket10686

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 718 (Smith v. Roddenbery Hardware 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

Smith v. Roddenbery Hardware Co., 100 S.E. 718, 24 Ga. App. 306, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 595 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

The plaintiff’s petition shows that he entered into a written contract with the defendant, pursuant to which he deposited $150, for the “right of exclusive sale of Grant Motor Cars in Thomas County,” the deposit to be refunded on his sale of four ears. In this action he sought to recover the deposit. The sale of the four cars was a condition precedent to his recovery of the deposit; and it not appearing from the petition that he complied with this condition, or that he had [307]*307any valid reason for non-compliance, or that the defendant had in any way breached the contract, no cause of action was set forth, and the trial court properly dismissed the petition on demurrer. See Griswold v. Scott, 13 Ga. 210 (2); Kimbrough v. Worrill, 38 Ga. 119; Baker v. Tillman, 84 Ga. 401 (11 S. E. 355); Life Insurance Company of Virginia v. Proctor, 18 Ga. App. 517 (89 S. E. 1088).

Decided October 20, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Cairo—Judge Bigsby. May 26, 1919.

Titus, Dehle & Hophins, for plaintiff. M. L. Ledford, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Smith, J.

The plaintiff’s petition shows that he entered into a written contract with the defendant, pursuant to which he deposited $150, for the “right of exclusive sale of Grant Motor Cars in Thomas County,” the deposit to be refunded on his sale of four ears. In this action he sought to recover the deposit. The sale of the four cars was a condition precedent to his recovery of the deposit; and it not appearing from the petition that he complied with this condition, or that he had [307]*307any valid reason for non-compliance, or that the defendant had in any way breached the contract, no cause of action was set forth, and the trial court properly dismissed the petition on demurrer. See Griswold v. Scott, 13 Ga. 210 (2); Kimbrough v. Worrill, 38 Ga. 119; Baker v. Tillman, 84 Ga. 401 (11 S. E. 355); Life Insurance Company of Virginia v. Proctor, 18 Ga. App. 517 (89 S. E. 1088).

Decided October 20, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Cairo—Judge Bigsby. May 26, 1919.

Titus, Dehle & Hophins, for plaintiff. M. L. Ledford, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 718, 24 Ga. App. 306, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-roddenbery-hardware-co-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack