Legal Opinion

Meredith v. Fay & Egan Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 28, 1927No. 17247, 17248PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

1. Where a written contract for the sale of particularly described machinery, generally referred to in the contract as a “planer and matcher” and a “trimmer,” expressly provides that in case of rejection of the property the purchaser will deliver it to the seller f. o. b. Cincinnati, and that this contract “is not modified or added to by any agreement not expressly stated herein, and that a retention of the property forwarded, after thirty days from its arrival at destination, shall constitute a trial and acceptance, [and?] be a conclusive admission of the truth of all representations made by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fay & Eagan Co. v. Dudley & SonsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
  2. Moore & Jester v. Smith Machine Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  3. Lingo v. Phœnix Hermetic Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1924

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bailey v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
  2. Eaves v. Georgian Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
  3. Hall v. HodgdonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1944
  4. McCray Refrigerator Sales Corp. v. NewCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
  5. Oliver Farm Equipment Sales Co. v. NeelyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934

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