American Standard Jewelry Co. v. Goodman

Supreme Court of Georgia

American Standard Jewelry Co. v. Goodman

56 S.E. 642, 127 Ga. 543, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 421

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 56 S.E. 642 (American Standard Jewelry Co. v. Goodman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Standard Jewelry Co. v. Goodman, 56 S.E. 642, 127 Ga. 543, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 421 (Ga. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. Where suit was brought upon a written contract for goods sold, and the defendant filed a sworn plea denying the execution of the instrument sued on, it was permissible for him to further plead and set up what the true agreement was, the same, according to the contentions of the defendant, not having been reduced to writing; and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with his obligations under said oral agreement.

2. Such further plea, admitting that the defendant had entered into contractual relations with the plaintiff relatively to the goods alleged to have been sold under the terms of the written contract, the execution of which was denied, was not demurrable on the ground that it sought to vary the terms of a valid written instrument by parol testimony, and to introduce a contract different from the one sued on.

Submitted July 18, 1906. Decided February 14, 1907.

Action on contract. Before Judge Mitchell. Berrien superior court. January 9, 1906.

Hendricks, Smith & Christian, for plaintiff. Alexander & Gary, for defendant.

•3. The other questions raised by the assignments of error in the bill of exceptions depend for their proper determination upon the evidence,, which this court will not consider, as the alleged brief of evidence is largely interspersed with colloquies between court and counsel, with statements of the stenographer, and with the questions of counsel and the answers of the witnesses thereto. Further, the brief of evidence contains ' a large mass of documentary evidence consisting of letters and other writings, much of which, at a glance, is seen to be totally irrelevant. The ‘mere fact that some portion of the evidence was properly reduced to narrative form dqes not take this brief of the evidence out of range of the rulings in the case of Price v. High, 108 Ga. 145, and in the cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

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

Beck, J.

1. Where suit was brought upon a written contract for goods sold, and the defendant filed a sworn plea denying the execution of the instrument sued on, it was permissible for him to further plead and set up what the true agreement was, the same, according to the contentions of the defendant, not having been reduced to writing; and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with his obligations under said oral agreement.

2. Such further plea, admitting that the defendant had entered into contractual relations with the plaintiff relatively to the goods alleged to have been sold under the terms of the written contract, the execution of which was denied, was not demurrable on the ground that it sought to vary the terms of a valid written instrument by parol testimony, and to introduce a contract different from the one sued on.

Submitted July 18, 1906. Decided February 14, 1907.

Action on contract. Before Judge Mitchell. Berrien superior court. January 9, 1906.

Hendricks, Smith & Christian, for plaintiff. Alexander & Gary, for defendant.

•3. The other questions raised by the assignments of error in the bill of exceptions depend for their proper determination upon the evidence,, which this court will not consider, as the alleged brief of evidence is largely interspersed with colloquies between court and counsel, with statements of the stenographer, and with the questions of counsel and the answers of the witnesses thereto. Further, the brief of evidence contains ' a large mass of documentary evidence consisting of letters and other writings, much of which, at a glance, is seen to be totally irrelevant. The ‘mere fact that some portion of the evidence was properly reduced to narrative form dqes not take this brief of the evidence out of range of the rulings in the case of Price v. High, 108 Ga. 145, and in the cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 S.E. 642, 127 Ga. 543, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-standard-jewelry-co-v-goodman-ga-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack