American Vigorelli, Inc. v. Smith, Phillips & Dipietro

Court of Appeals of Georgia

American Vigorelli, Inc. v. Smith, Phillips & Dipietro

276 S.E.2d 158, 157 Ga. App. 52, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1693

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1981

Docket60859

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 276 S.E.2d 158 (American Vigorelli, Inc. v. Smith, Phillips & Dipietro) 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 Vigorelli, Inc. v. Smith, Phillips & Dipietro, 276 S.E.2d 158, 157 Ga. App. 52, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1693 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellee-plaintiff instituted suit to recover for services alleged to have been performed for appellant-defendant pursuant to a written agreement. Appellant answered and raised by way of defense the lack of authority of the party who had signed the agreement on its behalf. Appellant appeals from the following order: “The above and foregoing case coming regularly on the jury trial calendar for trial on April 14, 1980 and after hearing evidence by the parties, the [appellee] having moved the Court for a directed verdict and the same being sustained: It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged, that the [appellee] have judgment in its favor and against the [appellant] . . .”

On appeal appellant’s enumerations of error are addressed solely to the direction of the verdict against it and its arguments all relate to the evidence concerning the authority of appellant’s signatory to the agreement being sued upon. However, “[n]o transcript of the evidence has been filed nor has the evidence adduced at trial been otherwise submitted under the methods outlined in Code Ann. § 6-805. Accordingly, we must assume that the trial court correctly granted the [appellee’s] motion. [Cit.]” Haga v. Holcombe, 147 Ga. App. 520 (249 SE2d 695) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, C. J., and Shulman, P. J., concur.

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

Carley, Judge.

Appellee-plaintiff instituted suit to recover for services alleged to have been performed for appellant-defendant pursuant to a written agreement. Appellant answered and raised by way of defense the lack of authority of the party who had signed the agreement on its behalf. Appellant appeals from the following order: “The above and foregoing case coming regularly on the jury trial calendar for trial on April 14, 1980 and after hearing evidence by the parties, the [appellee] having moved the Court for a directed verdict and the same being sustained: It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged, that the [appellee] have judgment in its favor and against the [appellant] . . .”

On appeal appellant’s enumerations of error are addressed solely to the direction of the verdict against it and its arguments all relate to the evidence concerning the authority of appellant’s signatory to the agreement being sued upon. However, “[n]o transcript of the evidence has been filed nor has the evidence adduced at trial been otherwise submitted under the methods outlined in Code Ann. § 6-805. Accordingly, we must assume that the trial court correctly granted the [appellee’s] motion. [Cit.]” Haga v. Holcombe, 147 Ga. App. 520 (249 SE2d 695) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, C. J., and Shulman, P. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.E.2d 158, 157 Ga. App. 52, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-vigorelli-inc-v-smith-phillips-dipietro-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack