Jackson v. Crane
| Decision Date | 31 August 1878 |
| Citation | 61 Ga. 392 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jackson. v. Langston & Crane. |
[Warner, Chief Justice, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.]
Sales. Warranty. Fertilizer. Evidence. Before Judge Rice. Jackson Superior Court. February Term, 1878.
Langston & Crane brought suit in the justice court of the 243d district G. M., against Jackson, on a note for $53.00, given for commercial manure, known as Bradley's Palmetto Acid. The note contained this stipulation: "It is expressly agreed and understood that I buy said commercial manure for my own use, to be used on lands cultivated by or for me, and it is guaranteed' to me as to its effect on crops only as to the analysis of the state inspector, as evidenced by his brand on each and every package, and I hereby accept the said analysis as evidenced by said brand as a correct estimate of the commercial value of said fertilizer.'' The justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the case was carried by appeal to the superior court.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, that there was no brand of the state inspector on the sacks containing the fertilizer sold to him, and that it was valueless as a manure.
The evidence as to whether the sacks were branded or not was distressingly conflicting. There was sufficient' to sustain a verdict either way. The jury found for the plaintiffs. The defendant moved for a new trial upon the following grounds:
1. Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows:
2. Because the court erred in charging as follows: "The defendant having brought the fertilizer without any guaranty as to its effect on crops, only as made by the inspector's brand, andhaving accepted the analysis of the fertilizer as evidenced by the inspector\'s brand as a correct estimate of the commercial value of said fertilizer, the defendant is bound by his contract, and according to his contract he cannot defend this action by showing that the fertilizer was of no value, and that he was not benefited by it."
3. Because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.
Other grounds were relied on, but they are not material here. The motion was overruled and the defendant excepted.
Jackson & Thomas; Erwin & Cobb, for plaintiff in error, cited 54 Ga., 527; 56 Ib., 557; 60 Ib., 520; 49 Ib., 620; 25 Ib.,
P. G. Thompson; T. W. Rucker; W. J....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hampton Guano Co. v. Hill Live Stock Co.
... ... have expressly agreed upon a different warranty, whether it ... be more or less extensive or limited ( Jackson v ... Langston, 61 Ga. 392; Farrow v. Andrews, 69 ... Ala. 96), and also that if a specific kind of fertilizer, or ... other article of a ... ...
-
Tucker v. Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Co., 368.
...of the same character. Benjamin on Sales (7th Am. Ed.) 672; Carleton v. Lombard, Ayres & Co., 72 Hun, 254, 260, 25 N. Y. S. 570; Jackson v. Langston, 61 Ga. 392; Baldwin v. Van Deusen, 37 N. Y. 487, 489; Deming v. Foster, 42 N. H. 165, 175; Dewitt v. Berry, 134 U. S. 306, 313, 10 S. Ct. 536......
-
Reynolds v. General Elec. Co.
...the same character. Benjamin on Sales (7th Am. Ed.) 672; Carleton v. Lombard, Ayres & Co., 72 Hun, 254, 260, 25 N.Y.Supp. 570; Jackson v. Langston, 61 Ga. 392; Baldwin v. Van-deusen, 37 N.Y. 487, 489; v. Foster, 42 N.H. 165, 175; De Witt v. Berry, 134 U.S. 306, 313, 10 Sup.Ct. 536, 33 .Ed. ......
-
Arlington Oil & Guano Co. v. Swann
...that the seller failed to comply with some of the laws of the state, and that for this reason the purchaser has been damaged. Jackson v. Langston, 61 Ga. 392; Allen Young, 62 Ga. 617; Patterson v. Ramspeck, 81 Ga. 808, 10 S.E. 390; Pryor v. Ludden & Bates, 134 Ga. 288, 67 S.E. 654, 28 L.R.A......