Cheek v. Tripp
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from Dooly superior court — Judge Gower. May 3, 1920. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, E. H. Tripp, he traded to Cheek an automobile for a certain mule and for 500 pounds of lint cotton and 30 bushels of cottonseed, taking from Cheek the paper described in paragraph 3 of the foregoing decision, and delivering the automobile to Cheek, who took it off with the mule, saying he wished to borrow the mule to take his wagon home, but would bring the…
Read the full summary
Action for damages; from Dooly superior court — Judge Gower. May 3, 1920. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, E. H. Tripp, he traded to Cheek an automobile for a certain mule and for 500 pounds of lint cotton and 30 bushels of cottonseed, taking from Cheek the paper described in paragraph 3 of the foregoing decision, and delivering the automobile to Cheek, who took it off with the mule, saying he wished to borrow the mule to take his wagon home, but would bring the mule back the next day. He did not bring the mule back, but brought the automobile back and said he was not going to…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
1. Where a suit in trover was pending, and in the same court there was pending a suit of the same plaintiff against the same defendant for damages growing out of the breach of a contract to deliver certain lint cotton and cottonseed, these two suits could by agreement be tried together, but it would be necessary for separate verdicts to be rendered unless there was an order of the court consolidating the cases.
2. In this case, there being no order consolidating the two cases, it was error to charge the jury aS complained of in the 6th, 7th and 8th grounds of the motion for a new trial.
3. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pipkin v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Cheek v. TrippCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Taylor v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932