Brown v. Wall

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. Wall

138 S.E.2d 698, 110 Ga. App. 400, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 651

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1964

Docket40854

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.E.2d 698 (Brown v. Wall) 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

Brown v. Wall, 138 S.E.2d 698, 110 Ga. App. 400, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit on account by an attorney to recover out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him while representing the defendant’s father in a damage suit. The defendant filed an answer in which he denied the indebtedness, and the case proceeded to trial before a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial, and the exception is to that judgment. Held:

The evidence authorized the finding that the defendant orally agreed to pay the out-of-pocket expenses sued for in consideration of the plaintiff’s; undertaking to prosecute a damage suit for the defendant’s father. Whether the defendant’s agreement was within or without the operation of the Statute of Frauds (Code § 20-401 (2)) is immaterial as this issue was not raised in the trial court by the filing of a plea of the Statute of Frauds and such issue cannot be raised for the first time in a ground of the motion for new trial. Tift v. Wight & Weslosky Co., 113 Ga. 681 (39 SE 503); Hale v. Lipham, 64 Ga. App. 796 (14 SE2d 236). The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial. See Davis v. Tift, 70 Ga. 52, 53 (2a); Pope v. Ellis, 34 Ga. App. 185 (129 SE 11); Guy v. Riley, 51 Ga. App. 404 (180 SE 624).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur. E. B. Shaw, for plaintiff in error. Morton P. Levine, contra.

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

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit on account by an attorney to recover out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him while representing the defendant’s father in a damage suit. The defendant filed an answer in which he denied the indebtedness, and the case proceeded to trial before a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial, and the exception is to that judgment. Held:

The evidence authorized the finding that the defendant orally agreed to pay the out-of-pocket expenses sued for in consideration of the plaintiff’s; undertaking to prosecute a damage suit for the defendant’s father. Whether the defendant’s agreement was within or without the operation of the Statute of Frauds (Code § 20-401 (2)) is immaterial as this issue was not raised in the trial court by the filing of a plea of the Statute of Frauds and such issue cannot be raised for the first time in a ground of the motion for new trial. Tift v. Wight & Weslosky Co., 113 Ga. 681 (39 SE 503); Hale v. Lipham, 64 Ga. App. 796 (14 SE2d 236). The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial. See Davis v. Tift, 70 Ga. 52, 53 (2a); Pope v. Ellis, 34 Ga. App. 185 (129 SE 11); Guy v. Riley, 51 Ga. App. 404 (180 SE 624).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur. E. B. Shaw, for plaintiff in error. Morton P. Levine, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 698, 110 Ga. App. 400, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-wall-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack