Terry v. Swift & Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Complaint: from Webster superior court — Judge Littleiohn. June 15, 1917. Swift & Company brought suit against Terry on a promissory note given for the purchase of fertilizers.
Read the full summary
Complaint: from Webster superior court — Judge Littleiohn. June 15, 1917. Swift & Company brought suit against Terry on a promissory note given for the purchase of fertilizers. The defendant admitted giving the note, but pleaded that the fertilizers failed to come up to the guaranteed analysis, and claimed on that account a deduction from the purchase-price in the total sum of $821.61. He claimed that fifty-one tons, known as the “Pioneer Brand,” fell off more than three per cent, from the guaranteed commercial value, and he asked to recover the twenty-five per cent, penalty allowed by law,…
1Opinion of the CourtHarwell, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The deduction conceded by the defendant in error and allowed by the court covered the penalties and shortage as allowed by the act of 1911 (Ga. L. 1911, p. 172, § 2), for the differences between the guaranteed commercial value and the actual commercial value as found by analysis, on both fertilizers, and also on the “Excelsior Top Dresser” (the four tons), the 25 per cent, penalty and shortage for false branding under section 3 of that act. This deduction from the purchase-price was in accord with the decision in Arlington Oil & Guano Co. v. Swann, 13 Ga.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Johnson v. Southern Mutual Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Verdery v. WaltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Arlington Oil & Guano Co. v. SwannCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
3Cited by3 opinions
- Georgia Fertilizer Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Douglas v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Georgia Fertilizer Co. v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932