Arrow Dyeing & Finishing Co. v. Clarklift of Dalton, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arrow Dyeing & Finishing Co. v. Clarklift of Dalton, Inc.

252 S.E.2d 197, 148 Ga. App. 693, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1616

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 11, 1979·No. 57161·Published

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is a suit on account in which plaintiff alleged an indebtedness of $7,580.98. At the close of all the evidence defendant moved for a partial directed verdict which was denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $7,000 and judgment was entered for that amount. Held:

The only error enumerated is the correctness of the denial of the motion for partial directed verdict. The ground of the motion was that there was no evidence of a written assignment to plaintiff of contracts for lease of equipment entered into between the assignor third party and defendant. These contracts formed a part of plaintiff s total claim. Contrary to this contention there was evidence showing an assignment of the contracts which consisted of testimony of witnesses concerning a "buyer-seller agreement.” There was no valid objection made to this testimony. While there are cases holding an assignment of a chose in action must be in writing (see annotations, Code Ann. § 85-1803), the evidence here does not demand a finding that the assignment was a parol agreement. CPA § 50 (a) (Code Ann. § 81A-150 (a)). Therefore, the court did not err in denying the motion for partial directed verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Banke, JJ., concur. Cotton, Katz, White & Palmer, William H. Willson, Jr., for appellee.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is a suit on account in which plaintiff alleged an indebtedness of $7,580.98. At the close of all the evidence defendant moved for a partial directed verdict which was denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $7,000 and judgment was entered for that amount. Held:

The only error enumerated is the correctness of the denial of the motion for partial directed verdict. The ground of the motion was that there was no evidence of a written assignment to plaintiff of contracts for lease of equipment entered into between the assignor third party and defendant. These contracts formed a part of plaintiff s total claim. Contrary to this contention there was evidence showing an assignment of the contracts which consisted of testimony of witnesses concerning a "buyer-seller agreement.” There was no valid objection made to this testimony. While there are cases holding an assignment of a chose in action must be in writing (see annotations, Code Ann. § 85-1803), the evidence here does not demand a finding that the assignment was a parol agreement. CPA § 50 (a) (Code Ann. § 81A-150 (a)). Therefore, the court did not err in denying the motion for partial directed verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Banke, JJ., concur. Cotton, Katz, White & Palmer, William H. Willson, Jr., for appellee.

Arrow Dyeing & Finishing Co. v. Clarklift of Dalton, Inc., 252 S.E.2d 197, 148 Ga. App. 693, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

252 S.E.2d 197 (Arrow Dyeing & Finishing Co. v. Clarklift of Dalton, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.