United Motor Atlanta Co. v. Paxson Bros.
United Motor Atlanta Co. v. Paxson Brothers
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.
1. The evidence did not demand a finding in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount sued for, and the discretion of the trial judge in granting a first new trial will not be disturbed.
2. On another trial, if it appears that the automobile, for the purchase-price of which suit was brought, was sold to the defendants under a contract containing a limited warranty, they can not insist upon ariy warranty other than that embraced in the contract. Cochran v. Jones, 11 Ga. App. 302 ( 75 S. E. 143 ). Moreover, if the defendants rely upon an express warr&.,ty, they can not defend upon proof of an implied warranty. Johnson v. Latimer, 71 Ga. 470 (2) ; Brooks Lumber Co. v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 136 Ga. 754 ( 72 S. E. 40 ). The evidence was sufficient to raise an issue of fact upon the plea of partial failure of consideration, and did not demand a finding that the machine was not in some respects deficient. 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.