
    McCord & Son v. Laidley & Company.
    Laidley & Co. sold toto Augusta and paid for on delivery. They shipped the bacon, and drew on McCord & Son a draft payable on demand, which was presented before the arrival of the bacon. McCord & Son refused to pay the draft, and directed the bank to which it was sent for collection to return it to Laidley & Co., stating at the time that they would refuse to accept the bacon because the sellers had violated their contract in demanding payment before the money was due. Afterwards the bacon arrived, and the agent of Laidley & Co. tendered it to McCord & Son and gave them an opportunity to accept and pay for it, which they declined to do. The bacon was then sold by Laidley & Co’s agent for the best price that could be obtained in the Augusta market, but bacon having declined in price, it brought less than McCord & Son had agreed to pay: Held, that McCord & Son were liable to Laidley & Co. for the difference between the contract price and the net proceeds of the sale of the bacon.
    May 8, 1891.
    
      Contracts. Vendor and purchaser. Before Judge Eve. City court of Richmond county. November term, 1889.
    Reported in the decision.
    Chas. Z. McCord, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiffs in error.
    E. W. Capers, Jr., contra.
    
   Lumpkin, Justice.

The substantial facts of this case are stated in the head-note. The draft which Laidley & Co. drew on McCord & Son for the price of the car-load of bacon was payable on demand. This was entirely consistent with the contract between the parties that the bacon was to be paid for on arrival, and the draft, therefore, was not improperly drawn. The only mistake about it was, that it was presented for payment before the bacon arrived and was, therefore, presented too soon; but certainly this fact did not give to McCord & Son the right to repudiate the entire contract and refuse to accept and pay for the bacon when it did arrive. If a note payable at a future day should be given for the purchase of personal property to be delivered when the note was paid, and by mistake or inadvertence payment of the note was demanded before its maturity, all that the maker need do would be to decline payment and notify the other party that he must wait until the note became due before demanding payment thereof. The present case seems to be one entirely analogous to the one supposed. There is ample evidence to sustain the conclusion that simply because the draft ivas presented to McCord & Son before the bacon reached Augusta, they sought to repudiate and cancel the entire transaction ; and also that when the bacon did arrive, they were afforded an opportunity to accept and pay for it, which they refused to do. We see no reason, in view of these facts, for setting aside this transaction, or denying to Laidley & Co. their right to recover what they lost by reason of the decline in bacon and the refusal of McCord & Son to comply with their contract.

The motion for a new trial contains various exceptions to the charges and refusals to charge of the court? but in none of them do we find any error requiring a new trial. It seems quite plain, from a careful examination of the record, that exact justice has been done in this case. Judgment affirmed.  