McClendon v. Ward-Truitt Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McClendon v. Ward-Truitt Co.

95 S.E. 310, 21 Ga. App. 822, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 549

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 12, 1918

Docket9150

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 310 (McClendon v. Ward-Truitt Co.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 310, 21 Ga. App. 822, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclendon-v-ward-truitt-co-gactapp-1918.