Legal Opinion

Kleckley v. Leyden

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 15, 1879PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Contracts. Warranty. Sales. Pleading. Jury. Before Judge Crisp. Macon Superior Court. May Term, 1879. Reported in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Bleckley, Justice.

1. The demurrer to the plea admitted the facts alleged in the latter to be true. By fair intendment, one of these facts was that the fertilizer was not in fact branded or marked. The inspector’s brand was the restricted guaranty, or the sign or emblem of it, which the contract contemplated, and if there was no brand, there was no delivery of the restricted guaranty. The consequence would be that the parties would be remitted to the general warranty implied by law. 61 Ga., 392.

Moreover, it is to be observed that at the date of this contract it was a penal offense to sell a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Jackson v. Langston & CraneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1878

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Beecher v. Peru Trust Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1912
  2. Smith v. WoodSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  3. Leman v. SaundersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API