Court Opinion

ID: 5609382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 03:54:19.525235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:03.337352
License: Public Domain

Wade, C. J.
The evidence did not demand a finding that the contract sued upon was based upon a gambling, immoral, or illegal consideration; and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the cer-. tiorari. Judgment affirmed.

George and Lulce, JJ.¡ concur.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error
cited: Alexander v. Allanta, 13 Ga. App. 354 (79 S. E. 177); Townsend v. State, 14 Ga. App. 757, 761 (82 S. E. 253); Meyer v. State, 112 Ga. 20 (37 S. E. 96, 51 L. R. A. 496, 81 Am. St. R. 17); Equitable Loan &c. Co. v. Waring, 117 Ga. 599 (44 S. E. 320, 62 L. R. A. 93, 97 Am. St. R. 177); DeFlorin v. State, 121 Ga. 593 (49 S. E. 699, 104 Am. St. R. 177); Russell v. Equitable Loan &c. Co., 129 Ga. 154, 161 (58 S. E. 881, 12 Ann. Cas. 129); Whitley v. McConnell, 133 Ga. 738 (66 S. E. 933, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 287, 134 Am. St. R. 223); Garland v. Isbell, 139 Ga. 34 (76 S. E. 591). Counsel for the defendant in error contended that the written contract was on its *483face complete and legal, and could not be added to or varied byparol proof; that there was no evidence that the seller was a party to any illegal scheme or purpose; and that even if the purchaser used the purchased articles for such a purpose and the seller knew of that purpose, mere knowledge of the purpose would not prevent the seller from recovering their value. In support of the latter contention counsel cited: 2 Elliott on Contracts, § 703; Watkins v. Curry, 103 Ark. 414 (147 S. W. 43, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 967); Rose v. Mitchell, 6 Colo. 102 (45 Am. E. 520) ; Hodgson v. Temple, 5 Taunt. 181; Armfield v. Tate, 7 Ired. 259; Hedges v. Wallace, 2 Bush, 442 (92 Am. D. 497).
Harris & Harris, for plaintiff in error.
Sharp & Sharp, contra.