53 S.E. 458 (Ga. 1906), Mountain City Mill Co. v. Cobb

Citation:53 S.E. 458, 124 Ga. 937
Opinion Judge:EVANS, J.
Party Name:MOUNTAIN CITY MILL CO. v. COBB.
Attorney:J. S. Du Pree and P. P. Du Pree, for plaintiff in error. Geo. I. Teasley and I. W. Blair, for defendant in error.
Case Date:February 19, 1906
Court:Supreme Court of Georgia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 458

53 S.E. 458 (Ga. 1906)

124 Ga. 937

MOUNTAIN CITY MILL CO.

v.

COBB.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 19, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action for goods the defendant in his plea admitted their purchase at the prices named, but denied any indebtedness, for the reason that at the time of the purchase the plaintiff agreed to give him the exclusive sale of that particular class of goods in the town where he did business, so long as he ""pushed" the same, on the faith of which he incurred considerable expense in placing this particular class of goods before his customers and had built up a large trade, when the plaintiff sold the same class of goods to a rival merchant and withdrew the sale thereof from the defendant; that the trade he had built up was of the value of $1,000, and that by the withdrawal of the sale of this class of goods and selling them to his competitor in business he had been damaged in the above-named sum. So much of the plea as attempted to set up recoupment was demurrable because the contract, the breach of which is alleged to have resulted in the damages claimed, was unilateral, and also because the damages were too remote and speculative to be capable of ascertainment.

Error from Superior Court, Cherokee County; Geo. F. Gober, Judge.

Action by the Mountain City Mill Company against W. S. Cobb. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

J. S. Du Pree and P. P. Du Pree, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. I. Teasley and I. W. Blair, for defendant in error.

EVANS, J.

This is an action on an account by the Mountain City Mill Company against W. S. Cobb. The items set out in the bill of particulars were for certain flour, bran, and grits. The defendant admitted that he bought the goods sued for, and at the prices named, but denied any indebtedness, for the reason that on or about the 15th day of January, 1902, the plaintiff sold to the defendant certain brands of flour, to wit, "White Satin" and "Diamond Patent," and the defendant was to have the exclusive right to sell flour of these particular brands in the town of Canton, Ga.; that after the purchase of this exclusive right of sale, the plaintiff sold flour under the same brands to a rival merchant in the town of Canton, and withdrew the sale of the flour from the defendant, who had built up a large trade upon this particular flour, and had been to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP