McFarland v. Burney

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McFarland v. Burney

153 S.E. 437, 41 Ga. App. 513, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 966

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1930

Docket20134

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E. 437 (McFarland v. Burney) 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

McFarland v. Burney, 153 S.E. 437, 41 Ga. App. 513, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 966 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Whether, in a suit to recover upon a contract by which, it was alleged, the plaintiff was to be paid upon a commission basis for services' rendered to the defendant, the plaintiff could recover under a contract by which he was to be paid upon a per diem basis for services rendered, yet where the evidence was conflicting as to whether the plaintiff had contracted to perform, the services for a compensation to be computed upon a commission basis or upon a per diem basis, and where the evidence authorized the inference that the plaintiff had performed the services under a contract by which he was to be paid a compensation computed upon a per diem basis, and he had been paid a certain sum of money for his services, and where the evidence did not as a matter of law, demand a finding that the plaintiff had not been paid on a per diem basis for all the services rendered, the verdict found for the defendant was authorized and was not without evidence to support it and contrary to law.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eoneur.

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

Stephens, J.

Whether, in a suit to recover upon a contract by which, it was alleged, the plaintiff was to be paid upon a commission basis for services' rendered to the defendant, the plaintiff could recover under a contract by which he was to be paid upon a per diem basis for services rendered, yet where the evidence was conflicting as to whether the plaintiff had contracted to perform, the services for a compensation to be computed upon a commission basis or upon a per diem basis, and where the evidence authorized the inference that the plaintiff had performed the services under a contract by which he was to be paid a compensation computed upon a per diem basis, and he had been paid a certain sum of money for his services, and where the evidence did not as a matter of law, demand a finding that the plaintiff had not been paid on a per diem basis for all the services rendered, the verdict found for the defendant was authorized and was not without evidence to support it and contrary to law.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 437, 41 Ga. App. 513, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarland-v-burney-gactapp-1930.