Luke v. Mayo

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Luke v. Mayo

89 S.E. 1090, 18 Ga. App. 614, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1142

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1916

Docket7525

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 1090 (Luke v. Mayo) 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

Luke v. Mayo, 89 S.E. 1090, 18 Ga. App. 614, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1142 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

1. Mayo sued Luke on an open account for the purchase-money of a certain crop, alleging that Luke agreed to purchase the crop for $125. The bill of particulars showed a credit of $75, and the prayer was for a judgment for $50, alleged to be the balance due. The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted in the sum sued for; that though he did buy the crop, his agreement with the plaintiff was that he should [615]*615pay $75, which, was paid, and that the $50 should be collected from a third person. Such a plea did not admit a prima facie case, and the defendant was not entitled to open and conclude the argument. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168 (35 S. E. 345); Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. App. 363 (58 S. E. 222).

Decided September 21, 1916.

Complaint; from Irwin superior court (transferred from city court of Ocilla) — Judge Graham presiding. April 28, 1916.

McDonald & Bennett, for plaintiff in-error. Melvin Meeks, Philip Newhern, contra.

2. If the judge’s instructions were inaccurate aá to' some of the contentions of the parties, they were harmless; and, the jury having resolved the issue of fact in favor of the plaintiff, and their finding being authorized by the evidence, this court will not disturb the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hodges, J.

1. Mayo sued Luke on an open account for the purchase-money of a certain crop, alleging that Luke agreed to purchase the crop for $125. The bill of particulars showed a credit of $75, and the prayer was for a judgment for $50, alleged to be the balance due. The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted in the sum sued for; that though he did buy the crop, his agreement with the plaintiff was that he should [615]*615pay $75, which, was paid, and that the $50 should be collected from a third person. Such a plea did not admit a prima facie case, and the defendant was not entitled to open and conclude the argument. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168 (35 S. E. 345); Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. App. 363 (58 S. E. 222).

Decided September 21, 1916.

Complaint; from Irwin superior court (transferred from city court of Ocilla) — Judge Graham presiding. April 28, 1916.

McDonald & Bennett, for plaintiff in-error. Melvin Meeks, Philip Newhern, contra.

2. If the judge’s instructions were inaccurate aá to' some of the contentions of the parties, they were harmless; and, the jury having resolved the issue of fact in favor of the plaintiff, and their finding being authorized by the evidence, this court will not disturb the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 1090, 18 Ga. App. 614, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luke-v-mayo-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack