Mize v. Mashburn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mize v. Mashburn

69 S.E. 316, 8 Ga. App. 408, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 190

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1910

Docket2774

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 316 (Mize v. Mashburn) 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

Mize v. Mashburn, 69 S.E. 316, 8 Ga. App. 408, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, G. J.

1. Young owed Mashburn an account for $13.20, and Mize agreed with both Mashburn and Young that he (Mize) would pay this debt to Mashburn, provided Young would work for Mize until he had earned a sufficient sum to pay the debt. In pursuance of this agreement Young did work for Mize until Mize owed him enough to pay his debt to Mashburn. Held, that the promise of Mize to pay Young’s debt was not within the statute of frauds, but by agreement Mize became the debtor by substitution, and Young had fully performed. Howell v. Field, 70 Ga. 592 (1); Bohannon v. Jones, 30 Ga. 488; Anderson v. Whitehead, 55 Ga. 278.

2. Where A sues B on an account for a sum certain, and there is no dispute as to the amount of the account, it being admitted that if B owes A anything he' owes the amount of the account sued, a verdict in favor of A,- without stating any amount', is not void for uncertainty. “A verdict is certain which can be made certain by what itself contains or by the record.” Giles v. Spinks, 64 Ga. 205; Harvey v. Head, 68 Ga. 247; Telfair County v. Clements, 1 Ga. App. 437 (57 S. E. 1059).

3. The verdict of the jury in the justice’s court was right, and the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorhri. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, G. J.

1. Young owed Mashburn an account for $13.20, and Mize agreed with both Mashburn and Young that he (Mize) would pay this debt to Mashburn, provided Young would work for Mize until he had earned a sufficient sum to pay the debt. In pursuance of this agreement Young did work for Mize until Mize owed him enough to pay his debt to Mashburn. Held, that the promise of Mize to pay Young’s debt was not within the statute of frauds, but by agreement Mize became the debtor by substitution, and Young had fully performed. Howell v. Field, 70 Ga. 592 (1); Bohannon v. Jones, 30 Ga. 488; Anderson v. Whitehead, 55 Ga. 278.

2. Where A sues B on an account for a sum certain, and there is no dispute as to the amount of the account, it being admitted that if B owes A anything he' owes the amount of the account sued, a verdict in favor of A,- without stating any amount', is not void for uncertainty. “A verdict is certain which can be made certain by what itself contains or by the record.” Giles v. Spinks, 64 Ga. 205; Harvey v. Head, 68 Ga. 247; Telfair County v. Clements, 1 Ga. App. 437 (57 S. E. 1059).

3. The verdict of the jury in the justice’s court was right, and the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorhri. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 316, 8 Ga. App. 408, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mize-v-mashburn-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack