Harper v. Green

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harper v. Green

149 S.E.2d 163, 113 Ga. App. 557, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1134

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 29, 1966

Docket41910

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 149 S.E.2d 163 (Harper v. Green) 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

Harper v. Green, 149 S.E.2d 163, 113 Ga. App. 557, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1134 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

*559 Eberharbt, Judge.

The evidence did not demand a verdict for the plaintiff in view of the contract between the parties that plaintiff would do the repairs and defendant would then sell the car and divide the proceeds equally between them. Plaintiff, urging the defendant to bring the car in and sell it for that purpose, recognized that a loss might result to both. Consequently, under that contract his entitlement might have been less than the amount of the account sued on.

Although it appears that the car was either not sold and was kept hidden out by the defendant, or was sold and defendant had failed to account for the proceeds, there is no evidence as to the value of the vehicle in its repaired condition or as to what it should have brought on a fair sale.

Whether a recovery on the contract would have been authorized under the pleadings here is not a question now before us. We do no more than to hold that in the light of the plaintiff’s own evidence a verdict upon the open account was not demanded and the first grant of a new trial was not error. Code Ann. § 6-1608.

Appellant enumerates as error the failure of the reporter to certify as to the correctness of the transcript when it was filed with the clerk of the trial court. This is without merit. The defect was amendable. Appellant makes no assertion of any error or incorrectness in the transcript. Either party might have objected to the filing of the uncertified transcript and, if necessary, could have moved for a hearing to get a certified transcript filed or have errors corrected if they appeared.. Code Ann. §§ 6-806, 6-807. But, by having failed to do so, he waived the objection.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

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

*559 Eberharbt, Judge.

The evidence did not demand a verdict for the plaintiff in view of the contract between the parties that plaintiff would do the repairs and defendant would then sell the car and divide the proceeds equally between them. Plaintiff, urging the defendant to bring the car in and sell it for that purpose, recognized that a loss might result to both. Consequently, under that contract his entitlement might have been less than the amount of the account sued on.

Although it appears that the car was either not sold and was kept hidden out by the defendant, or was sold and defendant had failed to account for the proceeds, there is no evidence as to the value of the vehicle in its repaired condition or as to what it should have brought on a fair sale.

Whether a recovery on the contract would have been authorized under the pleadings here is not a question now before us. We do no more than to hold that in the light of the plaintiff’s own evidence a verdict upon the open account was not demanded and the first grant of a new trial was not error. Code Ann. § 6-1608.

Appellant enumerates as error the failure of the reporter to certify as to the correctness of the transcript when it was filed with the clerk of the trial court. This is without merit. The defect was amendable. Appellant makes no assertion of any error or incorrectness in the transcript. Either party might have objected to the filing of the uncertified transcript and, if necessary, could have moved for a hearing to get a certified transcript filed or have errors corrected if they appeared.. Code Ann. §§ 6-806, 6-807. But, by having failed to do so, he waived the objection.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E.2d 163, 113 Ga. App. 557, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-green-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack