Brooks v. Ball
122 S.E. 716, 32 Ga. App. 48, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 248
Opinion
1. The evidence failing to establish the fact that “Mr. Conger” was the agent of plaintiff, the court did not err in excluding the following evidence of Mrs. Brooks, the defendant: “I told Mr. Conger when I indorsed the note that I would not be responsible for the payment of it.”
2. The defendant having pleaded an affirmative defense and admitted a prima facie case and assumed the burden of proof, and having failed to establish her defense, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.
Judgment afjvrmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brooks v. Ball, 122 S.E. 716, 32 Ga. App. 48, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).
122 S.E. 716 (Brooks v. Ball) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mansfield v. Standard Oil Co.
111 S.E.2d 151 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)