Fulton Products Corp. v. Bentley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fulton Products Corp. v. Bentley

153 S.E.2d 611, 115 Ga. App. 92, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1016

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 24, 1967

Docket42556

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 S.E.2d 611 (Fulton Products Corp. v. Bentley) 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

Fulton Products Corp. v. Bentley, 153 S.E.2d 611, 115 Ga. App. 92, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1016 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

To a suit on account the defendant filed a plea of setoff alleging that the plaintiff was indebted to him for the value of (a) a customer’s list furnished by the defendant to the plaintiff, (b) services rendered by the defendant to the plaintiff, and (c) the defendant’s interest in an automobile. The trial resulted in a verdict favorable to the defendant which allowed the defendant’s claim of setoff. The evidence showed without contradiction that the defendant received the merchandise on the account; that the defendant was a stockholder and officer of a corporation whose business was related to the business of the plaintiff; that the list furnished to the plaintiff by the defendant was the property of that corporation rather than the property of the defendant; and that the services rendered by the defendant were assistance to a salesman of that corporation (who later became a salesman of the plaintiff) and in that corporation’s business. The record shows that both counsel conceded that the setoff based on the defendant’s interest in an automobile was not supported by the evidence. The evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s claim of setoff. See Poore v. Shelnutt, 27 Ga. App. 237 (107 SE 597). The trial court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for judgment for the full amount sued for notwithstanding the verdict for a lesser amount.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hall, Judge.

To a suit on account the defendant filed a plea of setoff alleging that the plaintiff was indebted to him for the value of (a) a customer’s list furnished by the defendant to the plaintiff, (b) services rendered by the defendant to the plaintiff, and (c) the defendant’s interest in an automobile. The trial resulted in a verdict favorable to the defendant which allowed the defendant’s claim of setoff. The evidence showed without contradiction that the defendant received the merchandise on the account; that the defendant was a stockholder and officer of a corporation whose business was related to the business of the plaintiff; that the list furnished to the plaintiff by the defendant was the property of that corporation rather than the property of the defendant; and that the services rendered by the defendant were assistance to a salesman of that corporation (who later became a salesman of the plaintiff) and in that corporation’s business. The record shows that both counsel conceded that the setoff based on the defendant’s interest in an automobile was not supported by the evidence. The evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s claim of setoff. See Poore v. Shelnutt, 27 Ga. App. 237 (107 SE 597). The trial court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for judgment for the full amount sued for notwithstanding the verdict for a lesser amount.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E.2d 611, 115 Ga. App. 92, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulton-products-corp-v-bentley-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack