Williams-Thompson Co. v. Marshburn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Williams-Thompson Co. v. Marshburn

84 S.E. 90, 15 Ga. App. 614, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 5

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1915

Docket5691

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 90 (Williams-Thompson Co. v. Marshburn) 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

Williams-Thompson Co. v. Marshburn, 84 S.E. 90, 15 Ga. App. 614, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 5 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. Under a written contract for the purchase of cantaloupes, in which it was stipulated that they were “to be shipped” by the seller on a certain day, “such shipment to be free of split-ends arid overripe stock,” the court did not err in instructing the jury that “the place at which the warranty in question [that the melons were free of split-ends and overripe stock] is to be complied with is the place where the cantaloupes were delivered to the railroad” for shipment.

2. There was evidence directly and positively sustaining the plaintiff’s contention that he delivered the cantaloupes in accordance with his contract, “free of split-ends and overripe stock,” to a common carrier, for shipment; and while there was evidence in behalf of the defendant tending to show that the melons arrived at destination in an overripe condition, the verdict of the jury settled the question of fact.

3. There is no merit in any of the assignments of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from municipal court of Atlanta. April 20, 1914. Dillon, Burr ess & Kobah, for plaintiff in error.

Hewlett, Dennis & Whitman, contra.

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

Wade, J.

1. Under a written contract for the purchase of cantaloupes, in which it was stipulated that they were “to be shipped” by the seller on a certain day, “such shipment to be free of split-ends arid overripe stock,” the court did not err in instructing the jury that “the place at which the warranty in question [that the melons were free of split-ends and overripe stock] is to be complied with is the place where the cantaloupes were delivered to the railroad” for shipment.

2. There was evidence directly and positively sustaining the plaintiff’s contention that he delivered the cantaloupes in accordance with his contract, “free of split-ends and overripe stock,” to a common carrier, for shipment; and while there was evidence in behalf of the defendant tending to show that the melons arrived at destination in an overripe condition, the verdict of the jury settled the question of fact.

3. There is no merit in any of the assignments of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from municipal court of Atlanta. April 20, 1914. Dillon, Burr ess & Kobah, for plaintiff in error.

Hewlett, Dennis & Whitman, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 90, 15 Ga. App. 614, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-thompson-co-v-marshburn-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

3. There is no merit in any of the assignments of error.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack