Wilkerson v. Patton Sash, Door & Building Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wilkerson v. Patton Sash, Door & Building Co.

73 S.E. 1088, 10 Ga. App. 697, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 649

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1912

Docket3757

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 1088 (Wilkerson v. Patton Sash, Door & Building 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

Wilkerson v. Patton Sash, Door & Building Co., 73 S.E. 1088, 10 Ga. App. 697, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Where one party to an alleged contract for “the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise” relies upon a written memorandum, to show compliance with the statute of frauds, the memorandum must show all the terms of the contract, and that both parties thereto assented to those terms. Borum v. Swift, 125 Ga. 202 (53 S. E. 698) ; Clark on Contracts, 83.

2. An acceptance of a written offer relating to a subject-matter within the statute of frauds must itself be in writing, in order to make a con[698]*698tract mutually binding. Pope v. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. App. 176 (57 S. E. 949).

Decided March 6, 1912.

Action on contract; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Reece.

September 15, 1911. W. J. Nunnally, for plaintiff. Lipscomb, Willingham & Wright, Nathan Harris, for defendant.

3. Tlie alleged contract on which the suit is based consists of a written proposal or offer to buy certain described personal property at a specified price, and the allegations of the petition show that this written offer was withdrawn before acceptance or part performance by the proposed seller. The offer, therefore, never became a complete contract, and the court properly dismissed the petition on demurrer. Oak City Co. v. Kennedy Co., 4 Ga. App. 344 (61 S. E. 499) ; Sivell v. Hogan, 119 Ga. 284 (46 S. E. 67) ; 9 Cyc. 284. Judgment affirmed,.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. Where one party to an alleged contract for “the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise” relies upon a written memorandum, to show compliance with the statute of frauds, the memorandum must show all the terms of the contract, and that both parties thereto assented to those terms. Borum v. Swift, 125 Ga. 202 (53 S. E. 698) ; Clark on Contracts, 83.

2. An acceptance of a written offer relating to a subject-matter within the statute of frauds must itself be in writing, in order to make a con[698]*698tract mutually binding. Pope v. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. App. 176 (57 S. E. 949).

Decided March 6, 1912.

Action on contract; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Reece.

September 15, 1911. W. J. Nunnally, for plaintiff. Lipscomb, Willingham & Wright, Nathan Harris, for defendant.

3. Tlie alleged contract on which the suit is based consists of a written proposal or offer to buy certain described personal property at a specified price, and the allegations of the petition show that this written offer was withdrawn before acceptance or part performance by the proposed seller. The offer, therefore, never became a complete contract, and the court properly dismissed the petition on demurrer. Oak City Co. v. Kennedy Co., 4 Ga. App. 344 (61 S. E. 499) ; Sivell v. Hogan, 119 Ga. 284 (46 S. E. 67) ; 9 Cyc. 284. Judgment affirmed,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 1088, 10 Ga. App. 697, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkerson-v-patton-sash-door-building-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack