Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co.

89 S.E. 486, 145 Ga. 559, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 397
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 14, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 486 (Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 89 S.E. 486, 145 Ga. 559, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 397 (Ga. 1916).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. Whether a contract be entire or severable depends on the intention of the parties. A contract for the sale of 1,000 bushels of yellow-bottom onion sets, 25 bushels of rgd-bottom onion sets, and 1,000 bushels of white-bottom onion sets, for shipment about January 10, 1911 (weather permitting), is to be construed as an entire contract. Henderson Elevator Co. v. North Georgia Milling Co., 126 Ga. 279 (55 S. E. 50).

2. Where there was a contract for the sale of onion sets, and a portion was delivered, paid for, and used by the purchaser, he can not rescind the contract upon the ground that the quantity received and accepted by him was inferior in quality to that stipulated in the contract. Henderson Co. v. North Ga. Co., supra.

3. If the vendor delivered onion sets not in accordance with the contract and defective, and there was a delay in shipment, and this amounted to such a substantial non-compliance with the contract as a whole, the vendee might rescind the contract and refuse to accept performance as to the balance. But if, with the knowledge of any defects or delays, he received them and paid for the goods received, he could not rescind the contract on account of the failure of the vendor to comply with the contract in regard to the goods which were received. Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Turpin, 126 Ga. 677 (55 S. E. 925).

4. Under the pleadings and evidence, the principles announced in the foregoing headnotes were applicable to the case, and the excerpts from the charge upon which error was assigned, when considered in connection with the entire charge, were in accord therewith.

5. The action was for unliquidated damages for a breach of contract, and the evidence did not demand a verdict for the amount found for the [560]*560plaintiff. As the defendant did not introduce any evidence, the attorney for the defendant was entitled to the opening and conclusion of the argument before the jury. Civil Code, § 5746; Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28 (5), 34 (42 S. E. 258) ; Arthur v. Commissioners of Gordon, County, 67 Ga. 221 (5). Under the circumstances of the case, it was error requiring a new trial to refuse to allow the defendant’s counsel the right to open and conclude.

July 14, 1916. Action for breach of contract. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. July 17, 1915. P. O. O’Gorman and Pierce Brothers, for plaintiff in error. A. F. Purdy, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Hogsed v. Hogsed
196 S.E.2d 428 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1973)
Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell
143 S.E.2d 785 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Jones v. Chambers
95 S.E.2d 335 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Tribble v. Cotton Producers Ass'n
87 S.E.2d 423 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Hagood v. DIXSON COMPANY
78 S.E.2d 561 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Milligan v. Milligan
70 S.E.2d 459 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Campbell
192 S.E. 640 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Fleischer Knitting Mills Inc. v. Greenberg
188 S.E. 458 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Walnut Creek Milling Co. v. Smith Bros.
174 S.E. 255 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Williamson v. Williamson
168 S.E. 256 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Arlington Peanut Co. v. Dozier
161 S.E. 673 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Fair v. State
148 S.E. 144 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe
147 S.E. 397 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Lincoln Lumber Co. v. Keeter
145 S.E. 68 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Fite v. Hooks
130 S.E. 692 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Georgia Wool Stock Co. v. Transatlantic Clock & Watch Co.
126 S.E. 902 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 S.E. 486, 145 Ga. 559, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willett-seed-co-v-kirkeby-gundestrup-seed-co-ga-1916.