Wallace v. Flatauer Fixture & Sales Corp.

64 S.E.2d 476, 83 Ga. App. 699, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 943
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 6, 1951
Docket33470
StatusPublished

This text of 64 S.E.2d 476 (Wallace v. Flatauer Fixture & Sales Corp.) 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
Wallace v. Flatauer Fixture & Sales Corp., 64 S.E.2d 476, 83 Ga. App. 699, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 943 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Opinion

Eelton, J.

Where plaintiff by written retention-of-title contract purchases from defendant certain equipment and at the execution of the contract pays defendant a down payment on such equipment, and plaintiff requests defendant to hold the equipment on his behalf until he secures a location to install such equipment; and where defendant stores the equipment in accordance with the request and plaintiff never directs defendant where to physically deliver such equipment; and where plaintiff later informs defendant that he could not find a location for the equipment and requests the down payment back and defendant refuses, and plaintiff brings an action of money had and received for the down payment; and where the undisputed evidence shows that defendant still stores the equipment on behalf of plaintiff, Held-.

1. The filing of the suit for the down payment constituted a repudiation of the contract by plaintiff, and under Code § 96-113, defendant had a cause of action against plaintiff for the purchase-price of the equipment irrespective of the fact that defendant still had possession (Screven Oil Mill v. Mente & Co., 43 Ga. App. 780 (160 S. E. 104), and the facts constituting such cause of action are a good defense to the action [700]*700for the recovery of the down payment. The evidence authorized the court, sitting without the intervention of a jury, to find for the defendant.

Decided April 6, 1951. Augustus M. Roan, for plaintiff. Brown & Shoob, for defendant.

The court did not err in overruling plaintiff’s amended motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., and Worrill, J., concur.

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

Related

Screven Oil Mill v. Mente & Co.
160 S.E. 104 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 S.E.2d 476, 83 Ga. App. 699, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-flatauer-fixture-sales-corp-gactapp-1951.