Raymond Rowe Furniture Co. v. Simms, 33524
| Decision Date | 22 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33524,No. 1,33524,1 |
| Citation | 65 S.E.2d 830,84 Ga.App. 184 |
| Parties | RAYMOND ROWE FURNITURE CO. v. SIMMS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The allegations of the answer were sufficient to constitute a defense to the plaintiff's petition, and the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer thereto.
W. Stanford Willis, Columbus, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph S. Ray, Columbus, for defendant in error.
Raymond Rowe Furniture Company sued J. G. Simms to recover a deficiency judgment of $424.90 plus interest upon a certain conditional sales contract which the plaintiff had previously foreclosed. The articles allegedly sold the defendant and the price agreed to be paid as shown by the contract sued on were, 'One Gibson Elec. Stove $269.50, One Crosley Refrigerator $279.50, One Set Dishes $45.90' and one floor lamp. The defendant answered admitting the execution of the contract and alleging by way of defense that he purchased from the plaintiff, 'one Gibson Electric Stove, one new 1950 Crosley Refrigerator, and that one set of dishes, and one floor lamp were to be given him free for said purchase; that plaintiff did not deliver to him the merchandise purchased by him, but instead, delivered one used 1949 Crosley Refrigerator, which he did not purchase, and for which Plaintiff charged him the full price of a 1950 new Crosley Refrigerator.' The answer further alleged that, 'Defendant shows that within a day or two after delivery to him of the used 1949 Crosley Refrigerator, together with the Gibson Electric Stove, dishes and floor lamp, he notified Plaintiff that he had not delivered to him the property purchased by him; that he was not going to pay for the property delivered, wanted Plaintiff to remove same, and to deliver to him the property purchased instead; that Plaintiff informed him he would investigate and make good the property purchased instead of that delivered, but that said Plaintiff failed to do so; that Defendant time and time again, the exact dates of which are unknown to him, but well known to Plaintiff, informed Plaintiff that he would not pay for the property delivered to him since it was not the property purchased, but that Plaintiff still failed to do anything about it or deliver to Defendant the property purchased by him, even though Defendant insisted upon Plaintiff removing the property delivered to him, which he had not purchased * * * Defendant further shows that Plaintiff by his failure to deliver to him the property purchased by him, breached the contract and that Defendant refused to make any payments thereon because of Plaintiff's breach of contract.' The answer then alleged that the defendant had at all times been willing to abide by the terms of the contract provided the plaintiff would deliver to him the merchandise purchased, and it denied any indebtedness to the plaintiff but alleged that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant for the amount paid by the defendant on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nash v. Roberts Ridge Funding LLC
...Ponce, 280 Ga.App. 798, 801(1), 635 S.E.2d 168 (2006). See also Block v. Peter, 63 Ga. 260, 262 (1879); Raymond Rowe Furniture Co. v. Simms, 84 Ga.App. 184, 186, 65 S.E.2d 830 (1951). Pretermitting whether under the rules of contract construction 4 the ambiguous transfer terms ultimately co......
-
Kilbourne-Park Corp. v. Buckingham
...certiorari denied 317 U.S. 680, 63 S.Ct. 161, 87 L.Ed. 546; In re Gotham Silver Co., D.C.N.Y., 91 F.Supp. 520; Raymond Rowe Furniture Co. v. Simms, 84 Ga.App. 184, 65 S.E.2d 830; Bueg v. Aero Pattern & Engineering Co., 325 Mich. 467, 39 N.W.2d 40; Kast v. Kast, 361 Mo. 623, 235 S.W.2d In ad......
-
Smith v. Persichetti, A00A0141.
...Thus, we must turn to parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties. See OCGA § 13-2-2(1); Raymond Rowe Furniture Co. v. Simms, 84 Ga.App. 184, 186, 65 S.E.2d 830 (1951) (parol evidence admissible when contract of sale "completely lacking as to a description of the model, style and ......
-
Cutcliffe v. Chesnut
...(Tufts v. Cheatham, 75 Ga. 865); where defendant failed to deliver property in accordance with a sale agreement (Raymond Rowe Furn. Co. v. Simms, 84 Ga.App. 184, 65 S.E.2d 830; John A. Pope Motor Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga.App. 828, 87 S.E.2d 3. While it appears that rescision and restitution is......