Chitty v. Horne-Wilson, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtQuillian, J.
1. The defendants contend that, while the case sounds in tort, it is based upon the breach of a contract, and that consequently the rules of law as to the limitation of actions applicable to contracts rather than those relative to torts govern the time within which the suit could be legally brought.
Concededly, if the plaintiff had not entered into the contract under the terms of which he purchased the furnace, he could not have sustained damage when it is alleged to have exploded. However, the action is not predicated upon the breach of a contract, but rather upon the contention that,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Studebaker Corporation v. NailCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- King Hardware Co. v. EnnisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
- Davis v. BoyettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
3Cited by23 opinions
- Everhart v. Rich's, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1972
- Rosenau v. City of New Brunswick and Gamon Meter Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1968
- Rosenau v. City of New BrunswickSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1968
- Howe v. Pioneer Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- Lively v. GarnickCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.