Hadden v. Williams
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.
The plea is insufficient in law and should have been stricken on the oral-motion of the plaintiff. The note sued upon specifically stated that the only warranty given by the seller of the mules was as to their title. This excluded every other express warranty, and the plea set up express warranties only. Purser v. Rountree, 142 Ga. 836 (83 S. E. 958); Hoffman v. Franklin Motor Co., 32 Ga. App. 229 (3, 4) (122 S. E. 896). The defense set up in the plea as to fraud on the part of the plaintiff in inducing the defendant to sign the note was insufficient to excuse him, although he could neither…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. BelliwithCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
- Tinsley v. Gullett Gin Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Walton Guano Co. v. CopelanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Hoffman v. Franklin Motor Car Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Purser v. Rountree & McAfeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gossett & Sons v. WilderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Lee v. LovelandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Colson & Sons v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Walker v. B. E. Robuck, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
- Nolan v. CalhounCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.