Smith v. Eastern Light Co, 23710.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1934
• Docket Number: No. 23710.,23710.
• Citation: 176 S.E. 545,49 Ga.App. 593
• Parties: SMITH. v. EASTERN LIGHT CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

49 Ga.App. 593

176 S.E. 545

SMITH.

v.EASTERN LIGHT CO.

No. 23710.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Sept. 22, 1934.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Pulaski County; A. J. McDonald, Judge.

Suit by the Eastern Light Company against S. W. Smith. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Marion Turner, of Hawkinsville, for plaintiff in error.

H. F. Lawson, of Hawkinsville, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, Judge.

1. The implied warranty in a contract for the sale of a gas generating plant for supplying lights for illuminating purposes to a home, that the property sold is reasonably suited to the purposes intended, does not include the specific warranty that the amount of "carbide, " which is the fuel used to produce the illuminating gas, would not exceed a designated quantity for a period of six months. This fact, however, might be relevant as evidence tending to prove a breach of the implied warranty that the property sold was reasonably suited to the purposes intended.

2. Where such a contract is in writing, it is provided that the writing contains all the agreements and warranties, either express or implied, with respect to the property sold, and that there is no representative of the seller who has authority to make any representation or warranty or agreement, oral or written, other than such as is contained in the contract, and that the purchaser "warrants" that he is not relying upon any such statement by any representative of the seller, and where the contract contains no specific warranty that the amount of "carbide", which is the fuel used to produce the illuminating gas, would not exceed a designated quantity for a period of six months, a representation or warranty made to the purchaser by the agent of the seller, who negotiated the contract, that only one can of carbide would be sufficient to operate the plant for six months, is not a part of the contract.

3. Upon the trial of a suit by the seller against the purchaser, to recover on a note given for the purchase price of the property sold, where the only defense interposed was by the defendant's plea of a total failure of consideration, in a breach by the plaintiff of an alleged warranty that a certain limited amount of carbide would be sufficient to operate the plant for a period of six months, and that the plant was defective in that it required an unreasonable and excessive amount of fuel for its operation and...