Case Name: Vaughn-Carlton Company v. Studebaker Corporation of America et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1919-10-09
Citations: 24 Ga. App. 242
Docket Number: 10614
Parties: Vaughn-Carlton Company v. Studebaker Corporation of America et al.
Judges: Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
10614.
Vaughn-Carlton Company v. Studebaker Corporation of America et al.
Decided October 9, 1919.
Trover; from Colquitt superior court—Judge Thomas. April 10, 1919.
Application for certiorari to review this decision was denied. A report of facts in this case appears in 22 Get. App. 684. On the last trial the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant again brought the case to this court, on direct exceptions to the directing of the verdict and to certain rulings on the trial. At the trial the defendant moved to dismiss the case, on the ground that there was no allegation or proof of demand for the property before suit. The defendant sought to prove by the vice-president of the defendant company that at the time of the purchase of the property by the defendant, he did not know of the printed conditions retaining title in the plaintiff which were on the back of the order signed on the part of the purchaser. The contentions argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error were that the court erred in not sustaining the motion to dismiss, and in excluding the proffered testimony. It was contended by opposing counsel that in view of the defendant’s answer to the suit, in which the defendant admitted possession of the property and asserted title, it appeared that a demand would have been unavailing, and it was therefore unnecessary.
Shipp & Kline, D. P. Starr, for plaintiff in error.
P. Q. Bryan, contra.

Opinion:
Broyles, O. J.
1. None of the assignments of error is meritorious.
2. It appearing that this writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, the petition of the defendant in error that ten per cent damages be awarded against the plaintiff in error is granted.
Judgment affirmed, with damages.
Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.