Alsberg & Co. v. Harper Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Alsberg & Co. v. Harper Manufacturing Co.

111 S.E. 578, 28 Ga. App. 367, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 524

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 9, 1922

Docket13081

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 578 (Alsberg & Co. v. Harper Manufacturing Co.) 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

Alsberg & Co. v. Harper Manufacturing Co., 111 S.E. 578, 28 Ga. App. 367, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

This suit was brought under section 4131 of the Civil Code (1910), to recover the contract price of certain goods, and it was alleged that under the provisions of this section the goods were stored by the plaintiff for the defendant and held subject to the defendant’s order. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence certain parts of the depositions of a witness, and thereupon the court allowed the defendant, over the objections of the plaintiff, to read to the jury other parts of the depositions, and ruled that this testimony should be considered as evidence of the plaintiff. The court did not err in so ruling. Reed v. Travelers Ins. Co., 117 Ga. 116, 119 (2) (43 S. E. 433). The evidence introduced by the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of its petition. This being true, the court properly granted a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

This suit was brought under section 4131 of the Civil Code (1910), to recover the contract price of certain goods, and it was alleged that under the provisions of this section the goods were stored by the plaintiff for the defendant and held subject to the defendant’s order. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence certain parts of the depositions of a witness, and thereupon the court allowed the defendant, over the objections of the plaintiff, to read to the jury other parts of the depositions, and ruled that this testimony should be considered as evidence of the plaintiff. The court did not err in so ruling. Reed v. Travelers Ins. Co., 117 Ga. 116, 119 (2) (43 S. E. 433). The evidence introduced by the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of its petition. This being true, the court properly granted a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 578, 28 Ga. App. 367, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alsberg-co-v-harper-manufacturing-co-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack