American International Industries, Inc. v. Ivan Allen Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

American International Industries, Inc. v. Ivan Allen Company

138 S.E.2d 61, 110 Ga. App. 148, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 563

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1964

Docket40761, 40783

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 61 (American International Industries, Inc. v. Ivan Allen Company) 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

American International Industries, Inc. v. Ivan Allen Company, 138 S.E.2d 61, 110 Ga. App. 148, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 563 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

1. The alleged failure to file the brief of evidence with the motion for new trial in this case will not affect the movant’s right to review by this court, Adams v. Overland-Madison Co., 27 Ga. App. 531 (3) (109 SE 413), Donalson v. Bank of Jakin, 33 Ga. App. 428 (2) (127 SE 229), Marks v. Maxwell Bros. Furniture Co., 50 Ga. App. 325 (177 SE 920), Stainback v. Dunn, 53 Ga. App. 464 (1) (186 SE 220), Code of 1933, § 6-805, and the instant motion to dismiss the writ of error because of the alleged absence of a duly filed brief of the evidence must be denied. Stainback v. Dunn, 53 Ga. App. 464, 465 (1), supra; Cumberland Island Co. v. Bunkley, 108 Ga. 756 (1) (33 SE 183); Cain v. State, 131 Ga. 770 (63 SE 289).

2. Pretermitting the question of whether the brief of evidence in the record, which the bill of exceptions recites was handed to the clerk for filing and duly approved by the trial judge, is properly before this court, the uncontradicted evidence of the properly authenticated (Code § 38-711) business records of the plaintiff as testified to by plaintiff’s witness, together with the admission made in a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff, demanded the finding in favor of plaintiff as directed by the trial judge. One In All Corp. v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 108 Ga. App. 142 (3) (132 SE2d 116). That the last item on one of the business records, a ledger card, was an item crediting the last balance (the amount sued for) and showing a balance of zero, which the witness explained was a bookkeeping entry made when the account was transferred to the “bad debt account,” does not make a jury question as to the amount owed, in the absence of evidence to the con *149 trary showing payment of the prior balance or evidence impeaching the testimony of the witness.

Decided July 13, 1964 Rehearing denied July 28, 1964. Leiter & Leiter, Marvin O’Neal, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Howard & Storey, Robert W. Storey, contra.

Judgment affirmed on main bill of exceptions; cross bill dismissed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

1. The alleged failure to file the brief of evidence with the motion for new trial in this case will not affect the movant’s right to review by this court, Adams v. Overland-Madison Co., 27 Ga. App. 531 (3) (109 SE 413), Donalson v. Bank of Jakin, 33 Ga. App. 428 (2) (127 SE 229), Marks v. Maxwell Bros. Furniture Co., 50 Ga. App. 325 (177 SE 920), Stainback v. Dunn, 53 Ga. App. 464 (1) (186 SE 220), Code of 1933, § 6-805, and the instant motion to dismiss the writ of error because of the alleged absence of a duly filed brief of the evidence must be denied. Stainback v. Dunn, 53 Ga. App. 464, 465 (1), supra; Cumberland Island Co. v. Bunkley, 108 Ga. 756 (1) (33 SE 183); Cain v. State, 131 Ga. 770 (63 SE 289).

2. Pretermitting the question of whether the brief of evidence in the record, which the bill of exceptions recites was handed to the clerk for filing and duly approved by the trial judge, is properly before this court, the uncontradicted evidence of the properly authenticated (Code § 38-711) business records of the plaintiff as testified to by plaintiff’s witness, together with the admission made in a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff, demanded the finding in favor of plaintiff as directed by the trial judge. One In All Corp. v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 108 Ga. App. 142 (3) (132 SE2d 116). That the last item on one of the business records, a ledger card, was an item crediting the last balance (the amount sued for) and showing a balance of zero, which the witness explained was a bookkeeping entry made when the account was transferred to the “bad debt account,” does not make a jury question as to the amount owed, in the absence of evidence to the con *149 trary showing payment of the prior balance or evidence impeaching the testimony of the witness.

Decided July 13, 1964 Rehearing denied July 28, 1964. Leiter & Leiter, Marvin O’Neal, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Howard & Storey, Robert W. Storey, contra.

Judgment affirmed on main bill of exceptions; cross bill dismissed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 61, 110 Ga. App. 148, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-international-industries-inc-v-ivan-allen-company-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack