Casteel v. Allgood-Frey-Shaw Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Casteel v. Allgood-Frey-Shaw Co.

119 S.E. 456, 31 Ga. App. 107, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 752

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 12, 1923

Docket14614

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 S.E. 456 (Casteel v. Allgood-Frey-Shaw Co.) 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

Casteel v. Allgood-Frey-Shaw Co., 119 S.E. 456, 31 Ga. App. 107, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. A ground of a motion for a new trial assigning error on the action of the court in permitting a witness to answer a certain question, which does not disclose the answer objected to, presents no question for determination. Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ga. App. 175 (64 S. E. 703); Smith v. State, 119 Ga. 113 (46 S. E. 79); City of Moultrie v. Cook, 11 Ga. App. 649 (1) (75 S. E. 991).

2. Where on the trial of an action for the purchase-price of goods charged to the defendant but delivered to another the evidence makes a ease of sales wholly on the authority, written or verbal, of the defendant, and wholly on his credit, from first t'o last, he is an original debtor, and the law of promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another is not applicable. McLendon v. Frost, 57 Ga. 448 (15). The defendant denied that he had given such authority, but the evidence was conflicting, and the jury were authorized to find against him on this issue. See Cordray v. James, 19 Ga. App. 156 (1) (91 S. E. 239).

3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. A ground of a motion for a new trial assigning error on the action of the court in permitting a witness to answer a certain question, which does not disclose the answer objected to, presents no question for determination. Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ga. App. 175 (64 S. E. 703); Smith v. State, 119 Ga. 113 (46 S. E. 79); City of Moultrie v. Cook, 11 Ga. App. 649 (1) (75 S. E. 991).

2. Where on the trial of an action for the purchase-price of goods charged to the defendant but delivered to another the evidence makes a ease of sales wholly on the authority, written or verbal, of the defendant, and wholly on his credit, from first t'o last, he is an original debtor, and the law of promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another is not applicable. McLendon v. Frost, 57 Ga. 448 (15). The defendant denied that he had given such authority, but the evidence was conflicting, and the jury were authorized to find against him on this issue. See Cordray v. James, 19 Ga. App. 156 (1) (91 S. E. 239).

3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 456, 31 Ga. App. 107, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casteel-v-allgood-frey-shaw-co-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack