Smith v. Roddenbery Hardware Co.
Opinion
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] any 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).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
100 S.E. 718 (Smith v. Roddenbery Hardware Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.