Empire Lumber Co. v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Empire Lumber Co. v. Jackson

158 S.E. 760, 43 Ga. App. 366, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 367

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1931

Docket21064

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 760 (Empire Lumber Co. v. Jackson) 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

Empire Lumber Co. v. Jackson, 158 S.E. 760, 43 Ga. App. 366, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

The only error complained of in the instant case is upon the order overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial, which is based upon the general grounds only. The defendant contended that the indebtedness claimed by the plaintiff upon an open account for sawing lumber was the debt of another and different, concern, but operated under the same management. It can not be said, however, that the evidence demanded a verdict in the defendant’s favor, in view of the unpaid written order, directed by the defendant against a third person in favor of [367]*367tlie plaintiff in the amount of $53.84 on account of lumber sawed, which indicated on its face a balance due by the defendant to the plaintiff in that amount, after deducting an indebtedness due the defendant by the plaintiff, and in view of the further statement of the plaintiff’s account, introduced in evidence by the defendant, which indicated a balance due the plaintiff by the defendant of $180.19 for sawing on another “set,” the two amounts aggregating the amount of the recovery, to wit, $234.03. In view of the evidence submitted, the verdict, having the approval of the trial judge, can not be disturbed.

Decided May 15, 1931. E. E. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. William E. & W. Gordon Mann, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

The only error complained of in the instant case is upon the order overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial, which is based upon the general grounds only. The defendant contended that the indebtedness claimed by the plaintiff upon an open account for sawing lumber was the debt of another and different, concern, but operated under the same management. It can not be said, however, that the evidence demanded a verdict in the defendant’s favor, in view of the unpaid written order, directed by the defendant against a third person in favor of [367]*367tlie plaintiff in the amount of $53.84 on account of lumber sawed, which indicated on its face a balance due by the defendant to the plaintiff in that amount, after deducting an indebtedness due the defendant by the plaintiff, and in view of the further statement of the plaintiff’s account, introduced in evidence by the defendant, which indicated a balance due the plaintiff by the defendant of $180.19 for sawing on another “set,” the two amounts aggregating the amount of the recovery, to wit, $234.03. In view of the evidence submitted, the verdict, having the approval of the trial judge, can not be disturbed.

Decided May 15, 1931. E. E. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. William E. & W. Gordon Mann, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 760, 43 Ga. App. 366, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-lumber-co-v-jackson-gactapp-1931.