Sanders v. Simms

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sanders v. Simms

63 S.E.2d 271, 83 Ga. App. 226, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 837

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1951

Docket33357

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 S.E.2d 271 (Sanders v. Simms) 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

Sanders v. Simms, 63 S.E.2d 271, 83 Ga. App. 226, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

1. Ground 6 of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the overruling of a motion to dismiss the action, is without merit, as such is not a proper ground for a motion for a new trial. And the assignment of error on the overruling of the motion to dismiss cannot be considered, as the objection to the overruling of the motion was not preserved by exception pendente lite within the time provided by law. Ga. L. 1933, p. 293; § 42(b); Glass v. Brown, 49 Ga. App. 610(1) (176 S. E. 519); Ozburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 53 Ga. App. 682(1) (186 S. E. 852).

2. Where the defendant admitted receiving all of the moneys sued for, and the only reason which he gives for contending that he does not owe the account is that he was sent by the plaintiff into a territory which had been worked, but which the plaintiff had told him had not been worked, and where the evidence as to this was conflicting, the court, sitting a trior of facts, was authorized to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount sued for.

3. As the defendant admitted receiving the moneys shown in the bill of particulars, it was not harmful for the court to allow a copy of said bill of particulars to be introduced in evidence.

The Appellate Division of the Civil Court of Fulton County did not err in afflrming the judgment of the trial division of that court.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., and Worrill, J., concur. Robert B. Blackburn, for plaintiff in error. Harris, Henson, Spence & Gower, contra.

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

Felton, J.

1. Ground 6 of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the overruling of a motion to dismiss the action, is without merit, as such is not a proper ground for a motion for a new trial. And the assignment of error on the overruling of the motion to dismiss cannot be considered, as the objection to the overruling of the motion was not preserved by exception pendente lite within the time provided by law. Ga. L. 1933, p. 293; § 42(b); Glass v. Brown, 49 Ga. App. 610(1) (176 S. E. 519); Ozburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 53 Ga. App. 682(1) (186 S. E. 852).

2. Where the defendant admitted receiving all of the moneys sued for, and the only reason which he gives for contending that he does not owe the account is that he was sent by the plaintiff into a territory which had been worked, but which the plaintiff had told him had not been worked, and where the evidence as to this was conflicting, the court, sitting a trior of facts, was authorized to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount sued for.

3. As the defendant admitted receiving the moneys shown in the bill of particulars, it was not harmful for the court to allow a copy of said bill of particulars to be introduced in evidence.

The Appellate Division of the Civil Court of Fulton County did not err in afflrming the judgment of the trial division of that court.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., and Worrill, J., concur. Robert B. Blackburn, for plaintiff in error. Harris, Henson, Spence & Gower, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E.2d 271, 83 Ga. App. 226, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-simms-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack