Legal Opinion
Camp v. Works.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided May 21, 1923No. 13839PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Tn Harder v. Garter, 97 Ga. 273 (23 S. E. 82), a rule of estoppel was announced, to the effect that, where one gives a note for the purchase-money of an article which is defective, with full knowledge of such defect, he will be held to have waived the defect, and cannot set it up in defense to an action on the note. This rule has been limited by the doctrine announced in Means v.Subers, 115 Ga. 371 (41 S. E. 633), and Moultrie Repair Co. v. Hill, 120 Ga. 730 (7) (48 S. E. 143), to cases where it is made to appear that at the time the note was given the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Moultrie Repair Co. v. HillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Miller & Co. v. Moore, Sims & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Cook & Co. v. FinchSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Americus Grocery Co. v. Brackett & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Southern Power Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hardy v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
- Howard Inc. v. Nalley & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1931