Legal Opinion
Breman v. Rodbell
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided December 7, 1923No. 14868PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
It is insisted by the demurrer that the action should be construed as one for the recovery of the difference between the contract price and the alleged price on resale, and that the petition is insufficient to show a right of action, for the reason that it does not appear that any notice was given to the defendants of the intention to resell, and because it does not appear that the resale was made at the time of performance as-specified in the contract, nor within a reasonable time thereafter.
We think that the trial judge properly construed the action as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mandeville Mills v. DaleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Bearden Mercantile Co. v. Madison Oil Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad v. VaughanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
- Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Co. v. Farmers Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- City Council of Augusta v. MarksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. ReedCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Tifton Produce Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Ferguson v. Bank of DawsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Whitfield v. Cohutta Banking Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1928