Adams v. Booker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. Booker

67 S.E. 681, 7 Ga. App. 574, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 397

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1910

Docket2384

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.E. 681 (Adams v. Booker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Booker, 67 S.E. 681, 7 Ga. App. 574, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 397 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

Adams sued Booker for a balance due on account of building a house. There was no written contract. The defendant pleaded, that while he had agreed with the plaintiff as to the building of the house at the price sued for, yet it was to be done in a good and workmanlike manner, and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with his contract in this respect. The plea was rather indefinite, but there was no demurrer. The court and the parties seemed to have treated it as admitting a prima facie case in the plaintiff’s favor and entitling the defendant to the opening and conclusion. On the trial the defendant’s testimony showed a number of deficiencies in the carrying out of the contract, and placed before the jury sufficient evidence by which they could have estimated the amount of abatement that should be allowed the defendant of the purchase price.

As a matter of fact, the defendant was not entitled to the opening and conclusion. See Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. [575]*575App. 363 (58 S. E. 222). However, no point is made as to that. Indeed, no error of law is complained of. The evidence was conflicting, and the jury settled the conflict by allowing the defendant less than he claimed, but not allowing the plaintiff the full amount he claimed. It is very likely that they did in fact reach a fair result. At any rate, so far as the law is concerned, they reached a result that is legally conclusive of the question.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Powell, J.

Adams sued Booker for a balance due on account of building a house. There was no written contract. The defendant pleaded, that while he had agreed with the plaintiff as to the building of the house at the price sued for, yet it was to be done in a good and workmanlike manner, and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with his contract in this respect. The plea was rather indefinite, but there was no demurrer. The court and the parties seemed to have treated it as admitting a prima facie case in the plaintiff’s favor and entitling the defendant to the opening and conclusion. On the trial the defendant’s testimony showed a number of deficiencies in the carrying out of the contract, and placed before the jury sufficient evidence by which they could have estimated the amount of abatement that should be allowed the defendant of the purchase price.

As a matter of fact, the defendant was not entitled to the opening and conclusion. See Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. [575]*575App. 363 (58 S. E. 222). However, no point is made as to that. Indeed, no error of law is complained of. The evidence was conflicting, and the jury settled the conflict by allowing the defendant less than he claimed, but not allowing the plaintiff the full amount he claimed. It is very likely that they did in fact reach a fair result. At any rate, so far as the law is concerned, they reached a result that is legally conclusive of the question.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 681, 7 Ga. App. 574, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-booker-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack