Brooke v. Robson

• Decision Date: 25 November 1907
• Docket Number: (No. 624.)
• Citation: 59 S.E. 323,3 Ga.App. 136
• Parties: BROOKE. v. ROBSON.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

59 S.E. 323

3 Ga.App. 136

BROOKE.

v.ROBSON.

(No. 624.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 25, 1907.

Sale—Default of Buyer—Resale.

When the buyer, under a contract of sale, commits an anticipatory breach or renunciation by countermanding and giving notice that he will not accept the goods, and the seller elects the remedy of reselling the goods at the risk of the buyer, to hold the buyer liable for the difference between the original price and the price on resale, it must appear that the resale was made without unreasonable delay after an honest effort to get the best price obtainable.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 43, Sales, § 921.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Baldwin County; H. G. Lewis, Judge.

Action by G. W. Brooke against R. C. Robson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

On May 13, 1904, Robson contracted with Brooke to buy of him 3, 000 bushels of No. 2 mixed corn at 73 cents per bushel. On May 19th, before the corn had been shipped, Robson wrote to Brooke countermanding the order. On May 21st Brooke wrote, refusing to cancel the contract and asking for shipping directions. On May 260th Robson by letter reiterated that he would not accept the corn. On May 29th Brook wrote: "Beg to advise that it took two to make this contract, and it takes two to unmake it. We respectfully insist that you let us have shipping instruction on same at once." Again on May 31st, June 1st, and June 3d Brooke requested shipping instructions, but Robson made no answer. On June 18th Brooke wrote: "Shall we close corn for your account, or shall we carry longer for you?" And on June 25th he telegraphed: "Am offered sixty-six half basis Milledgevllle three cars corn. Will sell for your account unless have shipping instructions by 2 o'clock to-day." To neither of these Robson replied. Brooke sold the corn on June 25th for 66 1//2 cents per bushel, immediately notifying Robson to that effect. There was evidence that on and for several days after the date Robson gave notice of the countermand the market price ranged at and above the purchase price of 73 cents per bushel. The jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial on the general grounds, and to the overruling thereof brings error.

Hines & Vinson and Payne, Jones & Jones, for plaintiff in error.

C. T. Crawford, for defendant in error.

POWELL, J. (after stating the facts as above). The countermand was an anticipatory breach or renunciation of the contract. Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Carter, 116 Ga. 140, 42 S. E. 378, 59 L. R. A. 122, 94 Am. St. Rep. 112. By Civ. Code 1895, § 3551, the seller in such cases "may retain [the goods]...