Cochran v. Horner, 44721
| Decision Date | 13 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 44721,44721,2 |
| Parties | , 7 UCC Rep.Serv. 707 J. B. COCHRAN et al. v. Carl HORNER |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
McCamy, Minor, Phillips & Tuggle, Joseph T. Tuggle, Jr., Dalton, for appellant.
Mitchell & Mitchell, Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., Dalton, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The enumerations of error in this case assert that it was error for the court not to charge certain sections of the Uniform Commercial Code, to-wit: Code Ann. §§ 109A-2-312(1, 2); 109A-2-602(1, 2). No requests were made of the court to charge these statutory provisions but an exception was made for failure to so charge.
The case involves a simple sale of goods. From the evidence it appears that the buyer, defendant Cochran, accepted the goods and paid the seller therefor by two checks, but stopped payment immediately. The seller sued the buyer on account and introduced the checks as evidence of the debt. There is no dispute as to the quality or quantity of the goods or as to the amount of the purchase price.
The testimony of the defendant buyer was that immediately after he received the goods and had given his checks, he learned that a third party would claim a lien on the goods and that they were in fact attached two days later and eventually sold at public outcry.
The plaintiff's evidence was that he was the owner of the goods, having received them in lieu of wages owed him by his employer who had gone out of business.
The third party referred to testified for the defendants that the company which went out of business was indebted to him in a certain amount for goods which he had sold to it over a period of months; that he had gone to the company's place of business seeking to collect his debt and while there he had seen and recognized those goods; that later on that same day he saw these same goods at the defendants' place of business; that he told the defendants of his relationship to the goods and that he was going to have them attached and that he executed an attachment against the goods the following morning. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendants appeal from the judgment entered thereon.
1. The issue for determination was whether or not the seller had conveyed to the buyer a good title, free from any security interest, lien or encumbrance. A seller of goods so warrants. Code Ann. § 109A-2-312(1, 2). The trial court charged the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Imex Intern., Inc. v. WIRES EL
...§§ 11-2-602(3) and 11-2-703(e). Lipsey Motors v. Karp Motors, 194 Ga.App. 15, 19(3), 389 S.E.2d 537 (1989); Cochran v. Horner, 121 Ga.App. 297, 298(2), 173 S.E.2d 448 (1970). (f) Imex, in its notice of rejection of the plastification machine, failed to particularize the defects so that Wire......
-
Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Patron Aviation, Inc., 63505
...rules and recourses for buyers and sellers, and appellant has cited no authority to persuade us otherwise. Accord, Cochran v. Horner, 121 Ga.App. 297, 173 S.E.2d 448 (1970). 4. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's charging the jury without request and over objection that it could......
-
Lipsey Motors v. Karp Motors, Inc.
...and refers to [OCGA § 11-2-703] for the seller's remedies in such event, one of which is an action for the price." Cochran v. Horner, 121 Ga.App. 297, 298(2), 173 S.E.2d 448. In Autotax v. Data Input Corp., 136 Ga.App. 141, 142, 220 S.E.2d 456, we held that as an exception "[t]he contract p......