Cochran v. Meeks
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action of deceit; from city court of Waycross — H. M. Wilson, judge pro hac vice. April 28, 1919.
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
This was a suit to recover back the purchase-price paid for a number of bales of cotton, the plaintiff contending that in his purchase he was defrauded by reason of the seller’s false and fraudulent substitution of samples, on the basis of which the purchase was made. The plaintiff alleged that promptly upon discovering the fraud he offered to restore the property to the defendant, and that he held it as the property of the defendant, for the use and benefit and subject to the order of the defendant. Held:
1. While a mere “breach of warranty does not annul an executed sale, but gives the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Daughtry v. Savannah & Statesboro Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Fudge v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Pound v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
3Cited by6 opinions
- Brown v. Techdata Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Haralson v. Pope Chevrolet, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
- Usher v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- City of Winder v. WoodCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
- Chattanooga Beauty Supply Co. v. FaninCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.