Guggenheimer & Co. v. Whitehurst

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Guggenheimer & Co. v. Whitehurst

101 S.E. 774, 24 Ga. App. 650, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 428

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 6, 1920

Docket10640

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 774 (Guggenheimer & Co. v. Whitehurst) 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

Guggenheimer & Co. v. Whitehurst, 101 S.E. 774, 24 Ga. App. 650, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Suit was brought upon an open account, the defendant admitted the correctness of the account, and pleaded that the [651]*651plaintiff had become indebted to him by reason of the breach of a certain contract for the shipment of other goods; the defendant alleged that the contract had been lost, and undertook to establish the contract. The evidence for the defendant was to the effect that he could but estimate the goods enumerated in the original contract, and there was no positive evidence from the defendant as to the exact items named in the contract. The evidence of the plaintiffs #was positive that no such contract as the defendant sought to establish was entered into; that they had no knowledge of any such purported agreement. The jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant.

From a careful examination of the record it appears that the defendant is unable to show a positive contract, or to show the essential of a contract,—that the minds of the parties were in accord as to the same agreement. The verdict for the defendant was without legal evidence to support it, and it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Suit was brought upon an open account, the defendant admitted the correctness of the account, and pleaded that the [651]*651plaintiff had become indebted to him by reason of the breach of a certain contract for the shipment of other goods; the defendant alleged that the contract had been lost, and undertook to establish the contract. The evidence for the defendant was to the effect that he could but estimate the goods enumerated in the original contract, and there was no positive evidence from the defendant as to the exact items named in the contract. The evidence of the plaintiffs #was positive that no such contract as the defendant sought to establish was entered into; that they had no knowledge of any such purported agreement. The jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant.

From a careful examination of the record it appears that the defendant is unable to show a positive contract, or to show the essential of a contract,—that the minds of the parties were in accord as to the same agreement. The verdict for the defendant was without legal evidence to support it, and it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 774, 24 Ga. App. 650, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guggenheimer-co-v-whitehurst-gactapp-1920.