Legal Opinion

Whiteley v. Downs

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided May 13, 1932No. 8951PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.

The first, second, third, and fourth head-notes do not require elaboration.

One ground of the demurrer is that the petitioner does not offer to do equity, and seeks relief from liability on the note without offering to restore the benefits received under his contract of purchase. The petition alleges that Downs returned the automobile to the defendant, that a payment had been “made thereon of about six hundred pounds of peanuts, and the said automobile not [ ?] having been used very little, the said Whiteley Motor Company has been put in as good condition with reference to the purported sale…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Williams v. SapiehaTexas Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Flach v. Gottschalk Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1898
  3. Dixon, Mitchell & Co. v. Baxter & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  4. Fields v. Union Central Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
  5. Malsby & Co. v. StudstillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Kesinger v. BurtrumMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
  2. Dollar v. Fred W. Amend Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1937
  3. Atlanta Banking & Savings Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  4. Cook v. GrimsleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
  5. Boroughs v. BelcherSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955

7 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