Legal Opinion

Borochoff v. William Muirhead Construction Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 8, 1937No. 26245PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSutton, J.

The main contention between the parties, as argued in their briefs, is whether or not a valid contract was shown to have been entered into; but in the view that we take of the case, in considering the ground of the general demurrer that no cause of action was set forth it is unnecessary to decide that issue. Assuming, but not conceding, that a valid contract was entered into by reason of the letter of the defendant under date of May 7, 1936, and the telegram of the plaintiff under date of May 11, 1936, it is nevertheless apparent that on May 11, 1936, after the sending of the telegram, the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Phosphate Mining Co. v. Atlanta Oil & Fertilizer Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  2. Mendel v. Converse & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  3. Seabrook Coal Co. v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1920

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Szabo Associates, Inc. v. Peachtree-Piedmont AssociatesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  2. Whitley Construction Company v. Virginia Supply & Well CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
  3. Meeks v. Adams Louisiana Co.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1943
  4. Szabo Assoc. v. PEACHTREE &C. ASSOC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API