Borders v. Chapman
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.
Wade, C. J.
Where a purchase-money note for a mule is unambiguous and unconditional, and contains no warranty of the soundness of the mule, and recites that it has lost one eye, no express warranty can be added by parol; and a plea which set up an express warranty, alleged to have been made by parol contemporaneously with the execution of such a note, that “the other eye of said mule was absolutely sound and all right,” and that the mule soon thereafter became totally blind, was properly stricken on 'demurrer. Fleming v. Satterfield, 4 Ga. App. 351 ( 61 S. E. 518 ). The agreement between the parties being reduced to writing and appearing to be a complete and certain' agreement importing a legal obligation, it must, in the absence of fraud, accident, *713 or mistake, be conclusively presumed that the writing contained the whole of the agreement between the parties.
Decided October 16, 1918. Complaint; from Warren superior court—Judge Walker. May 30, 1918. M. L. Felts, for plaintiffs in error. L. D. McGregor, contra.
Judgment affirmed.
Jenkins and Luke, JJ., conctir.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 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.