Chamblee v. J.B. Colt Co.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 14690. |
| Citation | 119 S.E. 438,31 Ga.App. 34 |
| Parties | CHAMBLEE v. J. B. COLT CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a purchaser refuses to take and pay for goods bought by him and the seller stores or retains them for the vendee and sues for the entire price, it is not necessary that the goods be stored in this state.
The court did not err in this case in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.
Error from Superior Court, Milton County; D. W. Blair, Judge.
Action by the J. B. Colt Company against S. T. Chamblee. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. B Colt Company sued S. T. Chamblee for the purchase price of a certain carbide generator and appliances which it alleges were stored for the defendant after his refusal to accept and pay for them. The undisputed evidence shows that on November 3, 1919, the defendant gave a written order for the goods in question; that on November 11, 1919, the plaintiff accepted the order, and so notified the purchaser by letter, and in the letter said that "shipment will be made according to the instructions in said contract"; that on November 17 1919, defendant wrote a letter to plaintiff, seeking to countermand the order, saying, "I do not think it will suit me;" that on or about November 24, 1919, the plaintiff shipped the goods by rail to the defendant at Roswell, Ga.; that the defendant refused to accept the goods and they were returned to the plaintiff and were stored for the defendant. The court, on the foregoing facts being shown directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted.
Geo. F. Gober, of Atlanta, and G. B. Walker, of Alpharetta, for plaintiff in error.
E. W. Coleman, of Canton, for defendant in error.
BLOODWORTH, J. (after stating the facts as above).
An examination of the facts in the case of Dunaway v. Colt Co., 26 Ga.App. 554, 106 S.E. 599, will show that they are substantially the same as in this case, and we think that the rulings in that case are controlling in this one. However, counsel for plaintiff in error seeks to raise two questions which he claims were not passed upon in that case:
First, he says that under the provisions of section 4131 of the Civil Code of 1910, where the purchaser refuses to take and pay for the goods ordered, and the seller elects to store or retain the goods for the vendee and sue him for the entire price, he should store the goods in Georgia. In this contention we cannot agree with learned counsel. This is not required by the statute. In the second place, it is insisted that the contract provided that it would not be binding upon the seller until accepted by one of its officers, and that, the acceptance having been signed in New York, this made it a New York contract, and as it was neither pleaded nor shown what the New York law was. The common law is presumed to be of force there, and the contract should be construed under the common law. Civil Code 1910, § 8, provides that:
"The validity, form, and effect of all writings or contracts are determined by the laws of the place where executed."
Granting that the fact that the contract was accepted by the Colt Company in New York made it a New York contract, neither the validity nor the construction of the contract is questioned. It is not claimed that the contract itself is illegal and invalid under the New York law, but that under the law of that state the only remedy of the plaintiff would be a suit for a breach of the contract. The real controversy in this case is as to the remedy the plaintiff would have under the contract in the courts of this state.
"The manner in...
To continue reading
Request your trial