Bloom v. Americus Grocery Co
Decision Date | 12 December 1902 |
Citation | 116 Ga. 784,43 S.E. 54 |
Parties | BLOOM et al. v. AMERICUS GROCERY CO. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
1. There was no variance between the allegata and the probata.
2. The measure of damages recoverable of a vendor for failure to deliver goods sold being the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time and place for delivery, it follows that where a vendee, upon the trial of an action against his vendor for such damages, failed to submit any evidence as to the market price at the time for delivery, no actual damages could be recovered.
3. Where, under the evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover nominal damages, it is erroneous to grant a nonsuit.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Americus; C. R. Crisp, Judge.
Action by Bloom Sons against the Americus Grocery Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.
W. A. Dodson, for plaintiffs in error.
Shipp & Sheppard, for defendant in error.
FISH, J. Bloom Sons brought an action against the Americus Grocery Company for damages for the failure by the defendant to deliver a certain quantity of pease which the plaintiffs had purchased of it. The contract was evidenced by a correspondence between the parties, and can be sufficiently understood from the following letters:
Albert Bloom, on behalf of the plaintiffs, testified as follows: "That he remembered the transaction between Bloom Sons and the Americus Grocery Company; that there was delivered to Bloom Sons 15, 689 lbs. of pease, and that the Americus Grocery Company failed to furnish 14, 311 pounds, or in the neighborhood of 238 bushels; that, on account of the Americus Grocery Company not furnishing the pease, plaintiffs had to go out in the city of New Orleans and buy the pease, paying for them at open market 1.97-2 per bushel; and that Bloom Sons had to pay $156.40 more for the pease purchased by them than the contract price from the Americus Grocery Co." The bill of exceptions recites that "defendants in their plea admitted that they did sell plaintiffs some pease f. o. b. Americus, and the Americus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robert R. Sizer & Co. v. G.T. Melton & Sons
... ... exception to the report. Fricker v. Americus Improvement ... Co., 124 Ga. 165, 52 S.E. 65. The auditor stated in his ... report that he had ... order to recover actual damages. Bloom v. Americus ... Grocery Co., 116 Ga. 784, 43 S.E. 54. Where the delivery ... is to be made in ... ...
-
Farm Products Co. v. Eubanks
... ... market value at the time and place of delivery (Bloom v ... Americus Grocery Co., 116 Ga. 784 [2], 43 S.E. 54; ... Brandt v. Buckley, 27 Ga.App. 515 ... ...
-
Farm Prod.S Co v. Eubanks
...911. While, It is true, it was the burden of the plaintiff to prove the market value at the time and place of delivery (Bloom v. Americus Grocery Co., 116 Ga. 784 [2], 43 S. E. 54; Brandt v. Buckley, 27 Ga. App. 515 [1], 519, 109 S. E. 692), he was not confined in this to the evidence of hi......
-
Rome Cooperage Co. v. H. Bettis Co.
... ... by the contract. Civil Code 1910, § 4131; Bloom v ... Americus Grocery Co., 116 Ga. 784 (2), 787 (2), 43 S.E ... 54; Erwin v. Harris, 87 Ga ... ...