Groover, Stubbs & Co. v. Warfield & Wayne
Supreme Court of Georgia
Statute of frauds. Part performance. Factors. Damages. Before J. R. Saussey, Esq., Judge pro hao vice. City Court of Savannah.
Read the full summary
Statute of frauds. Part performance. Factors. Damages. Before J. R. Saussey, Esq., Judge pro hao vice. City Court of Savannah. May Term, 1873. Groover, Stubbs & Company brought assumpsit against Warfield & Wayne for $1,000 00 damages, alleging, in substance, as follows: That on the 11th, 12th and 14th days of April, 1873, they sold to defendants two hundred and twenty-five bales of cotton, to-wit: sixty-seven bales on the 11th, eighty-six on the 12th, and seventy-two on the 14th, at prices ranging from sixteen to eighteen and a half cents per pound; that within a reasonable time after the…
1Opinion of the Court
Trippe, Judge.
1. Section 1950, Code, paragraphs 1 and 7, is but a reproduction of the 17th section of the statute of frauds, in so far as it applies to this case. The 7th paragraph of the section makes the contract binding when “ the buyer shall accept part of the goods sold, and actually receive the same.” In this case there were three distinct sales of cotton, to-wit: on the 11th, 12th and 14th days of April, 1873. That sold on the 11th, and part of what was sold on the 14th, were accepted by the buyers and actually received by them. The reply made to this is, that as the cotton was sold…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Tinsley v. DowellTexas Supreme Court · 1894
- Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Columbia Improvement Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Aspironal Laboratories Inc. v. RosenblattCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Georgia Refining Co. v. Augusta Oil Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- Gunn v. Knoop, Freirichs & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.