Legal Opinion

Henry Cotton Mills v. Shoenig & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 12, 1925No. 15648PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

“Time is not generally of the essence of a contract; but, by express stipulation or reasonable construction, it may become so.” Civil Code (1910), § 4268 (8). It “is of the essence of a contract when the parties have expressly so treated it, or when it is necessarily so from the nature and circumstances of the contract.” Sneed v. Wiggins, 3 Ga. 94, 99, 100. “As a general rule a time fixed by a contract within which an option may be exercised is to be regarded as of the essence.” “Where the subject-matter of the contract is of speculative or fluctuating…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Harden v. LangSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  2. Sumner v. SumnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. City & Suburban Railway v. BraussSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
  4. Emery v. Atlanta Real Estate ExchangeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  5. Owens v. NicholsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Woodhull Corp. v. Saibaba Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
  2. Lawrence v. Atlanta Gas-Light Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  3. Monroe v. GuessCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  4. Calandro v. KoonsConnecticut Superior Court · 1951
  5. Rich's, Inc. v. Kirwan Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1958

2 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