Britt v. Crews

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Britt v. Crews

172 S.E. 117, 48 Ga. App. 145, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 501

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1933

Docket23492

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 117 (Britt v. Crews) 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

Britt v. Crews, 172 S.E. 117, 48 Ga. App. 145, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 501 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

In a suit on an account where the plaintiff testified that he contracted with a named person, who was the agent of the defendant, to furnish materials to the defendant at a named price, and that when he went to settle with the defendant, the defendant paid him a lower figure for the materials than the contract price, and that when plaintiff protested that this was not the price agreed upon the defendant said that he would consult the alleged agent and see about the matter, the jury were authorized to find that the person referred to was the defendant’s agent, authorized to make the contract with the plaintiff, although the testimony of the defendant and that of the alleged agent was directly in conflict therewith. It follows that the court below did not err in overruling defendant’s petition for certiorari, assigning error on the verdict in the justice’s court in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Sutton, J.

In a suit on an account where the plaintiff testified that he contracted with a named person, who was the agent of the defendant, to furnish materials to the defendant at a named price, and that when he went to settle with the defendant, the defendant paid him a lower figure for the materials than the contract price, and that when plaintiff protested that this was not the price agreed upon the defendant said that he would consult the alleged agent and see about the matter, the jury were authorized to find that the person referred to was the defendant’s agent, authorized to make the contract with the plaintiff, although the testimony of the defendant and that of the alleged agent was directly in conflict therewith. It follows that the court below did not err in overruling defendant’s petition for certiorari, assigning error on the verdict in the justice’s court in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 117, 48 Ga. App. 145, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-crews-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack