Hall v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co.
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pottle, J.
Where suit was brought on a promissory note given for the purchase-price of a threshing machine which was known by the purchaser to be defective, it was not error to strike a plea setting up that at the time the note was given, the plaintiff promised to remedy the defects; that it neglected to do so until after the expiration of the threshing season, during which time, by reason of plaintiff’s failure to comply with its promise, defendant lost a sum greatly in excess of the amount of the note, by way of profits which he would have received from threshing grain for hire had the machine been promptly put in good working order. Civil Code (1910), § 4394; Willingham v. Hooven, 74 Ga. 233 ( 58 Am. Rep. 435 ); Jester v. Bainbridge Bank, 4 Ga. App. 469 ( 61 S. E. 926 ). Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.