Case ID: ga_94/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Winn v. Morris et al.
    
    The agreed price for a mule being seventy dollars at the place where the contract of sale was made and where the mule was, with $1.80 added for delivering the animal at another place (both amounts being paid down), and the contract embracing an express stipulation for delivery at the latter place, and no delivery having been made at either place or elsewhere, the purchaser is entitled to recover of the seller, in an action for a breach of the contract, a sum equivalent to that paid, with interest thereon. The death of the mule after the expiration of the time within which delivery should have been made under the contract, would be no obstacle to a recovery. Judgment reversed,.
    
    March 26, 1894.
    Argued at the last term.
    Complaint. Before Judge Janes. Paulding superior court. January term, 1893.
    A. L. Bartlett and L. M. Washington, for plaintiff.
    George P. Roberts, for defendants.
   Winn bought a mule of Morris and Cathcart in Atlanta, and paid them $70 for it. He also paid them $1.80 more, at the same time, to deliver the mule at Watson’s stable in Douglasville, which they agreed to do. They hired a man to carry the mule to Douglasville, but it was never delivered at Watson’s stable, where Winn sent for it on two different days after it should have arrived there. On the fourth day after the trade, he found the mule dead at McClarty’s stable. He would not have bought it but for the agreement to deliver, and told Cathcart, at the time of the trade, that he did not want the mule unless they would deliver it at Watson’s stable in Douglasville. He sued them to recover the $71.80 with interest. They pleaded not indebted, and the jury found in their favor. Plaintiff' moved on the general grounds for a new trial, which was denied, and he excepted.