Legal Opinion

Holt v. Navassa Guano Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 6, 1902PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Complaint. Before Judge Littlejobn. Sumter superior court. December 1, 1900.

1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.

The Navassa Guano Company sued Holt upon two promissory notes. To this action the defendant pleaded that the consideration of the notes was commercial fertilizers, that a portion of the same was not tagged as required by the law of this State, and that for this reason the contracts evidenced by the notes were void. At the trial the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and to this ruling the defendant excepted.

Under the view we have taken of this case, it is unnecessary to determine certain questions which were claimed to have been presented in the record and which were argued…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bartow Guano Co. v. AdairCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  2. Hillis v. Comer & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
  3. Young v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  4. Planters Fertilizer Co. v. WheelerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
  5. Thomason v. Swift Fertilizer WorksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1910

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

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

Powered by the Exa API