Marshall v. Sheffield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Marshall v. Sheffield

134 S.E. 139, 35 Ga. App. 507, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 957

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket16927

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 139 (Marshall v. Sheffield) 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

Marshall v. Sheffield, 134 S.E. 139, 35 Ga. App. 507, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 957 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Under the original contract between the parties the defendant was privileged to return, freight prepaid, all unsold goods when reconditioned, and to receive credit therefor at the current wholesale price. Defendant pleaded satisfaction of the balance on the account sued upon, by virtue of a return of goods sufficient at the original .invoice price, as expressly authorized by a distinct subsequent contract in writing. While the plea did not allege that under such subsequent agreement, the returned goods could be shipped “collect,” it did allege their receipt and retention by the plaintiff. Held: The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the plea.

2. Under the certificate of the judge that the absence of the alleged subsequent written agreement had been accounted for, the court did not err in admitting proof of the same by parol testimony.

3. Since, however, the plaintiff denied ever having made such a subsequent agreement, and denied having received and retained the goods returned, the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Under the original contract between the parties the defendant was privileged to return, freight prepaid, all unsold goods when reconditioned, and to receive credit therefor at the current wholesale price. Defendant pleaded satisfaction of the balance on the account sued upon, by virtue of a return of goods sufficient at the original .invoice price, as expressly authorized by a distinct subsequent contract in writing. While the plea did not allege that under such subsequent agreement, the returned goods could be shipped “collect,” it did allege their receipt and retention by the plaintiff. Held: The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the plea.

2. Under the certificate of the judge that the absence of the alleged subsequent written agreement had been accounted for, the court did not err in admitting proof of the same by parol testimony.

3. Since, however, the plaintiff denied ever having made such a subsequent agreement, and denied having received and retained the goods returned, the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 139, 35 Ga. App. 507, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-sheffield-gactapp-1926.