McClendon v. Ward-Truitt Co.

95 S.E. 310, 21 Ga. App. 822, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 549
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McClendon v. Ward-Truitt Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 19 Ga. App. 495
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 12, 1918·No. 9150·Published

Opinion

Beoodworth, J.

1. Under the provision of the code that “Where any suit is instituted or defended-by a corporation, the opposite party shall not be admitted to testify in his own behalf' to transactions or communications solely with a deceased or insane officer or agent of the corporation” (Civil Code of 1910, § 5858 (3)), it was not error to refuse to allow the defendant in an action by a corporation to testify to transactions had with a traveling salesman, an agent of the corporation, • who at the time of the trial was dead,' relative to certain cheeks which the defendant claimed were delivered by him to the agent in part payment of the indebtedness sued on, even though he claimed also that the checks were destroyed by" fire.

2. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., concurs. Harwell, J., disqualified.

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

McClendon v. Ward-Truitt Co., 95 S.E. 310, 21 Ga. App. 822, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

95 S.E. 310 (McClendon v. Ward-Truitt Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.