Court Opinion

ID: 5607258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 03:47:34.228985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:59.490437
License: Public Domain

Russell, C. J.
As the purchase-money note sued on purported to contain the terms of the sale, and contained an express waiver of “all warranty” as to the mules for which the note was given, “except as to the title,” parol evidence as to breach of warranties implied by law, as well as of a breach of parol warranties contemporaneous with the execution of the written contract, should have been excluded. The court did not err in refusing a new trial. Branan v. Warfield, 3 Ga. App. 586 (60 S. E. 325); Branch v. James, 4 Ga. App. 90 (60 S. E. 1027) ; Boswell v. Johnson, 5 Ga. App. 251 (62 S. E. 1003) ; Watson v. Smith, ante, 62 (82 S. E. 633); McNeel v. Smith, 106 Ga. 215 (32 S. E. 119) ; Bullard v. Brewer, 118 Ga. 918 (45 S. E. 711). And see Pryor v. Ludden, 134 Ga. 289 (67 S. E. 654, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 267).

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.