Inman & Co. v. Barnum
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint. Before Judge Brinson. Richmond superior court. March 16, 1901. To the statement of facts in the opinion it is proper to add only that among the instructions complained of in the motion for a new trial were the following: “ Something has been said in this case as to the fact, which is a contention by the defendants, that they supposed Barnum & Company were manufacturers, and that they had a right to suppose that they were manufacturers of these articles.
Read the full summary
Complaint. Before Judge Brinson. Richmond superior court. March 16, 1901. To the statement of facts in the opinion it is proper to add only that among the instructions complained of in the motion for a new trial were the following: “ Something has been said in this case as to the fact, which is a contention by the defendants, that they supposed Barnum & Company were manufacturers, and that they had a right to suppose that they were manufacturers of these articles. It would not make any difference who manufactured the article, just so it came up to the description, just so it was such an…
1Opinion of the CourtSimmons, C. J.
It appears from the record that Inman & Co., merchants of Augusta, Georgia, desired an iron spiral staircase for the purpose of connecting certain offices they had been using with other rooms which they wished to use. They wrote to Barnum, of Detroit, Michigan, to ascertain if he could supply their wants. Barnum in reply stated that he could furnish the staircase at a designated price, which was subject to change after ten days. He also sent them a catalogue containing pictures of different kinds of staircases. Inman & Co., on September 6, ordered a staircase by the catalogue number, giving…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hawkins v. StuddardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Wolflin-Luhring Lumber Co. v. MoselyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Cincinnati Glass & China Co. v. StephensCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908