Legal Opinion

Purser v. Rountree & McAfee

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided December 17, 1914PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Complaint. Before Judge Graham. Bleckley superior court. October 3, 1913.

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

The plaintiffs in the court below brought suit against the defendant on a promissory note given for one sorrel horse. One of the stipulations in the note was that “it is expressly understood that the said Rountree and McAfee do not warrant the health or soundness of said animal.” The defendant filed his answer to the petition, setting up, in substance, that the note was given for *837the horse as alleged, and that at the time of the sale he paid plaintiffs fifty dollars as part of the purchase-price and took possession of the horse; that at the time the note was executed, plaintiffs told…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Walton Guano Co. v. CopelanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  2. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BroachSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  3. Eloyd v. WoodsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  4. Equitable Manufacturing Co. v. BiggersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  5. McNeel v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Brown v. Ragsdale Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
  2. Barfield v. FarkasCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
  3. Washington & Lincolnton Railroad v. Southern Iron & Equipment Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
  4. Colson & Sons v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  5. Fulenwider v. FulenwiderSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939

16 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