Frazier v. Beasley, 184 S.E. 712 (Ga. 1933). · Go Syfert
Frazier v. Beasley, 184 S.E. 712 (Ga. 1933). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wheeler v. Aiken (gactapp, 1980-04-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wheeler v. Aiken
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Co., 37 Ga. 26 (2), 31; Tanner v. Campbell, 182 Ga. 121, 122-123 (184 SE 705); Kutash v. Gluckman, 193 Ga. 805 (3), 810 ( 20 SE2d 128 ); Langenback v. Mays, 205 Ga. 706 .(3), 711 ( 54 SE2d 401 ). 3.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Concrete Coring Contractors, Inc. v. Mechanical Contractors & Engineers, Inc.
Ga. · 1965 · confidence medium
Tanner v. Campbell, 182 Ga. 121, 123 ( 184 SE 705 ).
discussed Cited "see" Piedmont Life Insurance Co. v. Bell (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tanner v. Campbell, 182 Ga. 121 ( 184 S. E. 705 ) where the contract was oral. *233 The defendant, in arguing that the contract was unilateral and therefore unenforceable because of the lack of mutuality of obligation, cites Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Wright, 187 Ga. 723 ( 2 S. E. 2d 73 ); Foster v. Mack, 180 Ga. 418 ( 179 S. E. 97 ); and Code § 20-304, together with a considerable number of cases decided thereunder.
Frazier
v.
Beasley
No. 10943.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Mar 11, 1933.
184 S.E. 712
B. J. Bacon, for plaintiff in error., G. E. Grow, J. D. Gardner, M. A. Warren, and Gailie Kennedy, contra.
Gilbert.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Gilbert, Justice.

Suit for specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of described land, with prayers for injunction, decree of title, and other relief, was filed by E. B. Beasley against John O. Frazier. General and special demurrers were filed. An amendment to the petition was filed, and objections and demurrers to the amendment were overruled, and the amendment was allowed. Exceptions were filed. A second amendment to the petition was filed, and a demurrer thereto was overruled and exceptions were filed. General and special demurrers to the petition as amended were then renewed and overruled. The defendant excepted. Held, that the petition as amended is subject to the general demurrer on the ground of the vagueness. of the allegations as to the terms of the contract, what the purchase-price was, and when due, and whether any part had been paid. No tender of the amount due and requisite for specific performance was made. The court erred in overruling the demurrers. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.