Hudson v. Germain Fruit Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from tbe City Court of Birmingham. Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The opinion in this case states the material facts. The only matters assigned as error are, the refusal of a charge asked by the defendant, and eight charges given on request of the plaintiff. The charge asked and refused was as follows : “If the plaintiff, through its agent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe City Court of Birmingham. Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The opinion in this case states the material facts. The only matters assigned as error are, the refusal of a charge asked by the defendant, and eight charges given on request of the plaintiff. The charge asked and refused was as follows : “If the plaintiff, through its agent. W. H. Jones, agreed to let defendant examine the fruit, and not to take it unless the same was found to, be sound and bright; and that the defendant, upon the arrival of the fruity demanded the right to examine it, and the right to examine it…
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
All the assignments of error are based upon the charges given by the court for plaintiff, and the refusal to charge as requested by defendant.
The cause of action is founded upon a contract for the purchase of a car-load of oranges, sold by appellee to the appellant, and was brought to recover the difference between the contract price and the amount realized from the sale of the oranges. The evidence shows that the fruit was sold by plaintiff, through its agent, W. H. Jones, of Birmingham, Alabama, to be shipped to the defendant at Birmingham, Ala., “subject to inspection, and to be received,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- M. A. Newmark & Co. v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915