Legal Opinion

Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Hodges

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 10, 1915No. 5838, 5839PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Complaint; from city court of Americus — -Judge Harper. May 31, 1914.

1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, J.

1. This case is practically controlled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Brooks v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 136 Ga. 754 (72 S. E. 40), and Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Broach, 137 Ga. 602 (73 S. E. 1063). The written contracts upon which the suits in those cases were based are substantially identical with the written contract in the instant ease, and hence, under the rulings in those cases, the written contract in the ease at bar was plain and unambiguous, and could not be added to or varied by any prior or contemporaneous parol promises or warranties made by the plaintiff. It…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BroachSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  2. Brooks Bros. Lumber Co. v. Case Threshing Machine Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1911

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hodges v. Case Threshing Machine Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API