McKown v. Heery
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Head, Justice.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1.' There is no merit in the contention that the option to purchase is void because it is without consideration, since under the terms of the contract the optionee was to pay a specified sum per month as rental. Such payment would be sufficient consideration to support the option, which is part of the same contract. Walker v. Edmundson, 111 Ga. 454 (36 S. E. 800); Turman v. Smarr, 145 Ga. 312 (3), 314 (89 S. E. 214); Crawford v. Smith, 151 Ga. 18 (105 S. E. 477); Pope v. Read, 152 Ga. 799, 802 (111 S. E. 382).
The present case is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Coker v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Turner v. PeacockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- McGehee v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
- Walker v. EdmundsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Roberts v. MayerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Redmond v. Sinclair Refining Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Morgan v. MitchellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
- Estate of Ryan v. ShumanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
- Auld v. Cobb Exchange BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Rose v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.