F. N. Roberts Corp. v. Southern Oxygen Supply Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

F. N. Roberts Corp. v. Southern Oxygen Supply Co.

127 S.E.2d 488, 106 Ga. App. 540, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 761

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1962

Docket39662

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 S.E.2d 488 (F. N. Roberts Corp. v. Southern Oxygen Supply 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

F. N. Roberts Corp. v. Southern Oxygen Supply Co., 127 S.E.2d 488, 106 Ga. App. 540, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 761 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

After trial before the court without a jury, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff (defendant in error) [541]*541in the full amount of the account sued on. The trial court overruled the motion for new trial of the defendant (plaintiff in error) on the general grounds, and the defendant assigns error on this judgment.

Decided September 18, 1962. Jack K. Bohler, for plaintiff in error. Zachary & Hunter, John C. Hunter, contra.

The defendant sought to establish that certain items included in the account were defective and were returned to the plaintiff with the agreement that they would be exchanged for other items, but the, plaintiff nevertheless charged the account with both the defective items and the items allegedly furnished in exchange. The plaintiff contended, on the other hand, that the parties reached an agreement as to the amount of credit due the defendant on account of the defective items, and that such credit was in fact given on the account. The evidence showed that all the disputed items were delivered and that a credit was given for some items of the kind in dispute, but was in conflict as to whether all the items the defendant claimed to be defective were returned, and as to whether other items included in the account were furnished in exchange for defective items. Held: ,

When the evidence, although in sharp conflict, supports the verdict, it is this court’s duty to affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for new trial. Bibb Cigar & Candy Co. v. McSwain, 95 Ga. App. 659, 661 (98 SE2d 128); Thomas v. Smith, 91 Ga. App. 508 (86 SE2d 353); Hyde v. Fornara, 74 Ga. App. 438 (40 SE2d 151).

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

After trial before the court without a jury, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff (defendant in error) [541]*541in the full amount of the account sued on. The trial court overruled the motion for new trial of the defendant (plaintiff in error) on the general grounds, and the defendant assigns error on this judgment.

Decided September 18, 1962. Jack K. Bohler, for plaintiff in error. Zachary & Hunter, John C. Hunter, contra.

The defendant sought to establish that certain items included in the account were defective and were returned to the plaintiff with the agreement that they would be exchanged for other items, but the, plaintiff nevertheless charged the account with both the defective items and the items allegedly furnished in exchange. The plaintiff contended, on the other hand, that the parties reached an agreement as to the amount of credit due the defendant on account of the defective items, and that such credit was in fact given on the account. The evidence showed that all the disputed items were delivered and that a credit was given for some items of the kind in dispute, but was in conflict as to whether all the items the defendant claimed to be defective were returned, and as to whether other items included in the account were furnished in exchange for defective items. Held: ,

When the evidence, although in sharp conflict, supports the verdict, it is this court’s duty to affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for new trial. Bibb Cigar & Candy Co. v. McSwain, 95 Ga. App. 659, 661 (98 SE2d 128); Thomas v. Smith, 91 Ga. App. 508 (86 SE2d 353); Hyde v. Fornara, 74 Ga. App. 438 (40 SE2d 151).

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E.2d 488, 106 Ga. App. 540, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-n-roberts-corp-v-southern-oxygen-supply-co-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack