Smith v. Printup Bros. & Co.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1877 |
| Citation | 59 Ga. 610 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Smith, Son & Brother, plaintiffs in error. v. Printup Brothers & Company, defendants in error. |
Continuance. Set-off. Before Judge Underwood. Floyd Superior Court. January Adjourned Term, 1877.
To the action set forth in the opinion, the defendants pleaded as follows:
That on the 9th day of May, 1875, they purchased from one W. S. McElwain three hundred tons of pig iron for the sum of $32.00 per ton, and said McElwain, by bis contract in writing of said date, sold to the defendants said three hundred, tons of pig iron, and in said contract obligated himself to deliver said iron to the defendants at Rome; that the said defendants paid to said McElwain on said purchase the sum of $8,267.40, a part of which had been paid prior to May 9, 1875, and the balance in various sums between said date and the 30th day of July, 1875; that said McElwain delivered to defendants only fifty tons of iron, besides the iron hereafter mentioned; that he shipped for the defendants various other quantities of said iron, so purchased by them, by boat from Cedar Bluff, Ala., and delivered the *same on the wharf at Rome, at various dates prior to —1875, amounting in the aggregate to about one hundred and fifty tons, which he notified the defendants was a part of their said purchase, and was for them, although by said contract of sale he obligated himself to load said iron on the cars at Rome; that the plaintiffs, well knowing of the purchase of said iron by the defendants, and that the same had been shipped to them by the said McElwain, and that the said McElwain was insolvent, which the defendants alleged to be true, yet, contriving and designing subtily to defraud the defendants, on the day and year last mentioned, took possession of said iron and appropriated the same to their own use. Whereupon the plaintiffs became indebted to the defendants, and liable to pay them whatever sum the said iron might reasonably be worth, and the defendants allege the said iron to have been worth on the said day the sum of $32.00 per ton, or in the aggregate $1,800.00 and the plaintiffs being so indebted and liable to defendants on said day and year, undertook and promised, in contemplation of law, to pay the defendants said sum of $4,800, with lawful interest thereon, to-wit, 12 per cent. per annum; yet the plaintiffs, not regarding their said promise and undertaking, have not paid said sum, nor any part thereof, but the same to pay have hitherto wholly neglected and refused. Whereupon the defendants plead this sum as a set-off to said action, and pray judgment in their favor for the excess of their said demand, over that of the plaintiffs sued on.
For the remaining facts, see the opinion.
Wright & Featherston; J. W. Ewing, for plaintiffs in error.
Dabney & Fouche, for defendants.
This was a suit brought by Printup Bros. & Co. against Smith, Son & Brother, as partners, on two bills of ex-change, *drawn by them in favor of Printup Bros. &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hecht v. P. H. Snook & Austin Furniture Co
...arising from the commission of a tort by the defendant a claim growing out of a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Smith v. Printup, 59 Ga. 610; Green v. Combs, 81 Ga. 210, 6 S. E. 582; Mashburn v. Inman, 97 Ga. 396, 24 S. E. 39; Harden v. Lang, 110 Ga. 392, 36 S. E. 100. A c......
-
McLendon v. State
...are expected at the next term. Wright v. State, 18 Ga. 383(2); Wall v. State, 126 Ga. 86(1), 54 S.E. 815, supra; Smith, Son & Bro. v. Printup Bros. & Co., 59 Ga. 610(1); Lamar v. McDaniel, 78 Ga. 547(2), 3 S.E. 409; Butler v. Georgia Agricultural Credit Corp., 37 Ga.App. 390(1), 140 S.E. 42......
-
Hecht v. P.H. Snook & Austin Furniture Co.
... ... the plaintiff and the defendant. Smith v. Printup, ... 59 Ga. 610; Green v. Combs, 81 Ga. 210, 6 S.E. 582; ... Mashburn v. Inman, 97 Ga ... ...
-
Harden v. Lang
...also, Deford v. Hutchison (Kan. Sup.) 11 L. R. A., note on page 257 (s. c. 25 Pac. 641); Green v. Combs, 81 Ga. 210, 6 S. E. 582; Smith v. Printup, 59 Ga. 610. This rule, so clearly founded on principle, must not be confused with that announced by this court in several cases where actions w......