Legal Opinion

Hayslip v. Long

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 4, 1952No. 33933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarlisle, J.

Headnote 1 is self-explanatory and requires no further elaboration.

In special ground 1 (numbered 4) error is assigned upon the following extract of the court’s charge to the jury: “If you find that there has been a mistake in the execution of the written contract in this case or for any other reason the written contract is not enforceable, I charge you that this fact would not preclude the plaintiff from a recovery in this suit, but he is entitled to recover from the defendant all the money he has paid to him or for his benefit at his request and the value of all merchandise turned over to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McCay v. F. C. Barber & SonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
  2. Minor v. OzierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
  3. Herrington v. City of DublinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
  4. Holtsinger v. BeverlyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. CreedonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  2. Bankers Fidelity Life Insurance v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
  3. Chappas v. SandefurCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API