Hagan Grocery Co v. Nobles
| Decision Date | 08 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11732.) |
| Parties | HAGAN GROCERY CO. v. NOBLES. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from City Court of Bainbridge; H. B. Spooner, Judge.
Action by the Hagan Grocery Company against W. H. Nobles. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
So much of the petition as was material was as follows:
(3) Your petitioner alleges that on or about October 10, 1918, it purchased from W. H. Nobles one car of Indian River oranges, consisting of 400 crates, to be shipped to your petitioner on December 10, 1918, at Donalsonville, Ga., and for which it was agreed that your petitioner was to pay the defendant on delivery the sum of $3.85 per crate, or a total of $1,540.50, said fruit to be in prime condition and to be of good merchantable quality.
(4) Your petitioner alleges that said contract of sale was duly confirmed about October 10, 1918, and your petitioner, after purchasing said oranges, sold the same to its trade before the same arrived at Donalsonville, as suming that the defendant would perform his contract as made and entered into.
(5) Your petitioner alleges that the defendant did, on December 10, 1918, ship to your petitioner a car of oranges, consisting of 400 crates, which arrived at Donalsonville, about December 13, 1918, in a badly damaged condition, about 50 per cent, of the same being rotten and damaged, and having been damaged for a period of several days before being shipped to your petitioner.
(6) That the oranges shipped to your petitioner were practically worthless, and about 50 per cent, of same were unsalable, and your petitioner declined to accept the same, and requested the defendant to ship another car in order to complete his contract as made and entered into with your petitioner, which the defendant declined and refused to do.
(7) Petitioner alleges that by reason of the failure of the defendant to perform its contract petitioner was compelled to go into the market and buy other oranges at much higher price in order to fill its contract with its customers, and in so doing it suffered a loss by reason of so doing in the amount herein sued for.
Exceptions to introduction of evidence not sufficiently indicated in the opinion of the court were as follows:
Because the court erred in excluding from the consideration of the jury, on objection of counsel for defendant in the court below, the following material evidence of the witness A. G. Hagan, president and general manager of the Hagan Grocery Company, the same being ruled out by the court on the ground that the price would be at the place of delivery, and not at some other point than the place of delivery, the questions and answers ruled out being as follows:
The foregoing evidence was excluded from the jury by the court on objection of counsel for defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was restricted to proving the market price on the date of the breach of the contract, and when oranges were purchased in lieu of those which the seller had declined to furnish, at the time and place of sale.
Because the court erred in excluding from the consideration of the jury the following material evidence of the witness A. G. Hagan, president and manager of the Hagan Grocery Company, on objection of counsel for defendant, the evidence excluded being substantially as follows:
The court on objection of defendant ruled out the foregoing evidence, and excluded the same from the consideration of the jury, and plaintiff in the court below then and there excepted, and here and now excepts, and says that the court erred in excluding said evidence from the consideration of the jury.
Because the court erred in withholding and excluding from the consideration of the jury the...
To continue reading
Request your trial