Martin v. Turner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. Turner

29 S.E.2d 317, 70 Ga. App. 735, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 93

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 4, 1944

Docket30290.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 S.E.2d 317 (Martin v. Turner) 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

Martin v. Turner, 29 S.E.2d 317, 70 Ga. App. 735, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The un- . disputed evidence supported the allegations of the petition and demanded the verdict directed. The defendant’s main contention *737 is that there was a conflict between the testimony of the plaintiff and that of Jesse Aycock, which raised an issue of fact that should have been submitted to the jury.

The undisputed evidence disclosed that the truck, while in the defendant’s possession, was wrecked and badly damaged; that the defendant had failed to pay two of the installment notes, when due, to the Commercial Credit Corporation; that the corporation called upon the plaintiff to pay the notes, and he paid them; and that the corporation also instructed the plaintiff to repossess the truck, and he did so, and sold the truck at a private sale for a sum which left a deficiency in the amount due him. Aycock testified that before and after the repossession of the truck, and before it was sold, he and the plaintiff entered into an oral contract for Ay-cock’s purchase of, the truck for a sum that would have left no deficiency. The plaintiff denied making such a contract. However, we do not think that conflict in the evidence raised an issue for the determination of the jury. Assuming that Aycock’s testimony was true, the contract was a mere verbal one, and since it involved an amount of more than fifty dollars, was not enforceable. Code, § 20-401, par. 7. "The other contentions of the defendant are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The un- . disputed evidence supported the allegations of the petition and demanded the verdict directed. The defendant’s main contention *737 is that there was a conflict between the testimony of the plaintiff and that of Jesse Aycock, which raised an issue of fact that should have been submitted to the jury.

The undisputed evidence disclosed that the truck, while in the defendant’s possession, was wrecked and badly damaged; that the defendant had failed to pay two of the installment notes, when due, to the Commercial Credit Corporation; that the corporation called upon the plaintiff to pay the notes, and he paid them; and that the corporation also instructed the plaintiff to repossess the truck, and he did so, and sold the truck at a private sale for a sum which left a deficiency in the amount due him. Aycock testified that before and after the repossession of the truck, and before it was sold, he and the plaintiff entered into an oral contract for Ay-cock’s purchase of, the truck for a sum that would have left no deficiency. The plaintiff denied making such a contract. However, we do not think that conflict in the evidence raised an issue for the determination of the jury. Assuming that Aycock’s testimony was true, the contract was a mere verbal one, and since it involved an amount of more than fifty dollars, was not enforceable. Code, § 20-401, par. 7. "The other contentions of the defendant are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.E.2d 317, 70 Ga. App. 735, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-turner-gactapp-1944.