Legal Opinion

Jones v. Cedartown Supply Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 5, 1941No. 28867PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

While the purchaser does not allege the value of the land he acquired and the value of the tract with the 22 $4 acres included, so that it may be determined in what proportion he should be allowed an abatement in the purchase-price, according to the rule laid down in Smith v. Kirkpatrick, 79 Ga. 410 (2) (7 S. E. 258), and Doss v. Wooten, 139 Ga. 561, 564 (77 S. E. 793), in the event it should be held that under the facts otherwise disclosed he is entitled to a reduction in the purchase-price, the separate value of the 22 $4 acres not being the measure of damages as the cited cases rule, still…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gibson v. AlfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
  2. Folsom v. HowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
  3. Brannen v. BrannenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
  4. Smith v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
  5. Cohron v. Woodland Hills Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1927

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Foster v. HumburgSupreme Court of Kansas · 1956
  2. Shirk v. ShirkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1960
  3. McGhee v. Floyd CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
  4. Daniell v. McGuireCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
  5. Mancuso v. SantucciDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API