Bridges v. Home Guano Co
Decision Date | 07 December 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 15836.) |
Citation | 33 Ga.App. 305,125 S.E. 872 |
Parties | BRIDGES. v. HOME GUANO CO. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from City Court of Bainbridge; H. B. Spooner, Judge.
Action by R. L. Z. Bridges against the Home Guano Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
R. L. Z. Bridges brought an action for damages against Home Guano Company for the breach of an alleged contract for the sale and delivery of 20 tons of fertilizer. A copy of the writing upon which the plaintiff relied as constituting the contract was annexed to the petition, and was as follows:
The defendant made an oral motion to dismiss the declaration, which the court sustained, rendering the following judgment:
"It appearing to the court that the contract sued upon contains the following clause, to wit, 'the company reserves the right to ship all or any part of the contract as they may deem expedient, ' and the court being of the opinion that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant because of said clause contained in the contract sued upon, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the declaration be and the same hereby is dismissed upon motion of defendant."
The plaintiff excepted.
Harrell & Custer, of Bainbridge, for plaintiff in error.
Hartsfield & Conger, of Bainbridge, for defendant in error.
If the petition, for any other reason than that mentioned in the judgment of dismissal, had failed to set forth a cause of action, we possibly should affirm the judgment, even though we disagreed with the learned trial judge in the ground upon which the dismissal was based; but since counsel for both parties have devoted their arguments mainly to the point upon which the court below disposed of the matter, and since we are satisfied that whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover all of the damages for which he sued his petition was good for a recovery of at least a part of the same, and therefore not subject to be stricken in its entirety (Port Wentworth Terminal Corporation v. Leavitt, 24 Ga. App. 650 [1], 101 S. E. 766), unless it was fatally defective for the reason just indicated, we will limit this opinion to a consideration of that question alone.
The clause which was held by the trial court to be fatal to the writing as an enforceable undertaking on the part of the defendant was as follows:
"In case of destruction of our mills, in whole or in part, or stoppage by strikes or other causes, we reserve the right to cancel all or any part of this contract; and the company reserves the right to ship all or any part of this contract as they may deem expedient."
Notice the semicolon. It is insisted, in effect, by the defendant that the clause following that mark of punctuation is to be considered independently of the preceding part of the sentence, and thus as attaching an unconditional reservation of the right to ship only such part of the fertilizers as it might deem expedient. On the other hand, it is contended by...
To continue reading
Request your trial