Johnson Lumber Co. v. Weems

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson Lumber Co. v. Weems

95 S.E. 310, 22 Ga. App. 79, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 153

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 14, 1918

Docket9404

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 310 (Johnson Lumber Co. v. Weems) 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

Johnson Lumber Co. v. Weems, 95 S.E. 310, 22 Ga. App. 79, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The suit was for the purchase-price of building materials alleged to have been bought by the defendant on an open account. The plaintiff’s proof showed that the materials were sold, not to the defendant, but to her contractor, arid that after the sale the defendant made an oral promise to pay for them. Under such circumstances the court did not err in excluding, on motion of the defendant, the evidence relating to her promise to pay for the materials, on the ground that such evidence was at variance with and not authorized by the allegations of the petition.

2. The plaintiff’s evidence did not sustain the material allegations of the petition, and the court did not err in awarding a nonsuit.

3. The rulings in the preceding notes being controlling in the case, it is unnecessary to consider the assignments of error in the exceptions pendente lite filed by the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Harwell, J., disqualified.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The suit was for the purchase-price of building materials alleged to have been bought by the defendant on an open account. The plaintiff’s proof showed that the materials were sold, not to the defendant, but to her contractor, arid that after the sale the defendant made an oral promise to pay for them. Under such circumstances the court did not err in excluding, on motion of the defendant, the evidence relating to her promise to pay for the materials, on the ground that such evidence was at variance with and not authorized by the allegations of the petition.

2. The plaintiff’s evidence did not sustain the material allegations of the petition, and the court did not err in awarding a nonsuit.

3. The rulings in the preceding notes being controlling in the case, it is unnecessary to consider the assignments of error in the exceptions pendente lite filed by the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Harwell, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 310, 22 Ga. App. 79, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-lumber-co-v-weems-gactapp-1918.