Phosphate Mining Co. v. Atlanta Oil & Fertilizer Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action, on contract; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. March 18, 1916.
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge, J.
1. The courts of this State' are committed to the rule laid down in Hochster v. De la Tour, 2 El. & Bl. 678, and followed by the ■ Supreme Court of the United States in Rhoem v. Horst, 178 U. S. 1 (20 Sup. Ct. 780, 44 L. ed. 953). The rule is: An absolute refusal by one party to perform an executory contract containing mutual obligations, prior to the date or dates fixed for performance, if such re-' pudiation goes to the whole contract, amounts to a tender of a breach of the contract; and if accepted as such by the opposite party to the contract, it constitutes an anticipatory breach, and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Carter & FordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Smith v. Georgia Loan, Savings & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Realty Co. v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Ford & Co. v. LawsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- McCurry v. McCurrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Mendel v. Converse & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Litz v. HarmanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1928
- Jinright v. RussellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
- Adp-Financial Computer Services, Inc. v. The First National Bank of Cobb CountyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.