Legal Opinion
Manley v. Exposition Cotton Mills
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided September 9, 1933No. 22865PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. “The mere breach of an ordinary contract does not constitute a tort; and if is no liability except that *497arising out of a breach of a purely contractual duty, the action must be in contract, and. an action in tort can not be maintained.” There are certain classes of contracts that create a relation from which the law implies duties a breach of which will constitute a tort, and “in such cases an injured party may sue either for breach of the contract, or in tort” for breach of the implied duty. This rule applies in certain contractual relations between principal and agent, bailor and bailee,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- City & Suburban Railway v. BraussSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
- Lydia Pinkham Medicine Co. v. GibbsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. WestSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. SpinksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Ripley v. Eady & MayfieldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Long v. Jim Letts Oldsmobile, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Mauldin v. ShefferCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. NewmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Leonard v. Firemen's InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- Billy L. Hanson v. Aetna Life & Casualty, a Connecticut Corporation Doing Business in the State of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.