Darby v. Saffold & Sharpe

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Darby v. Saffold & Sharpe

174 S.E. 250, 49 Ga. App. 81, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 267

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1934

Docket23381

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 S.E. 250 (Darby v. Saffold & Sharpe) 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

Darby v. Saffold & Sharpe, 174 S.E. 250, 49 Ga. App. 81, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 267 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. Under the pleadings and evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of fifty dollars at all events. If the evidence for the defendant is accepted as being- true, fifty dollars is the entire amount to be recovered. If the evidence for the plaintiff is accepted as being true, the verdict for $350 is demanded. It was error for the court to charge the jury that they should find a verdict for $350 or find in favor of the defendant, and to exclude from the jury the consideration of whether the promise to pay was $100 or $400.

2\ The statute of frauds is not involved in this ca.se, either by the evidence or the pleadings. A promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another means some definite person. A promise made by an individual, for no named person, and in an undertaking in which the promisor is primarily liable, does not come under the provisions of the statute of frauds. The defendant, under his pleadings and evidence, is primarily liable for some amount, whether it be $50 or $350. No third persons are named in the pleadings 'or in the evidence as being the ones for whom the defendant is secondarily liable. The work contracted for is for the defendant’s benefit; and if he is to escape liability thereon, he must show that the plaintiff agreed to accept some other definite person to be primarily liable for the debt.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., conour.

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

Guerry, J.

1. Under the pleadings and evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of fifty dollars at all events. If the evidence for the defendant is accepted as being- true, fifty dollars is the entire amount to be recovered. If the evidence for the plaintiff is accepted as being true, the verdict for $350 is demanded. It was error for the court to charge the jury that they should find a verdict for $350 or find in favor of the defendant, and to exclude from the jury the consideration of whether the promise to pay was $100 or $400.

2\ The statute of frauds is not involved in this ca.se, either by the evidence or the pleadings. A promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another means some definite person. A promise made by an individual, for no named person, and in an undertaking in which the promisor is primarily liable, does not come under the provisions of the statute of frauds. The defendant, under his pleadings and evidence, is primarily liable for some amount, whether it be $50 or $350. No third persons are named in the pleadings 'or in the evidence as being the ones for whom the defendant is secondarily liable. The work contracted for is for the defendant’s benefit; and if he is to escape liability thereon, he must show that the plaintiff agreed to accept some other definite person to be primarily liable for the debt.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., conour.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E. 250, 49 Ga. App. 81, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darby-v-saffold-sharpe-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack