Slater, Myers & Co. v. Demorest Spoke & Handle Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Slater, Myers & Co. v. Demorest Spoke & Handle Co.

21 S.E. 715, 94 Ga. 687, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 271

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 20, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 S.E. 715 (Slater, Myers & Co. v. Demorest Spoke & Handle Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slater, Myers & Co. v. Demorest Spoke & Handle Co., 21 S.E. 715, 94 Ga. 687, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 271 (Ga. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Robinson was indebted to the plaintiffs $114.91 on an account. He sold out his stock of goods to defendants, and informed plaintiffs that defendants had assumed payment of the account. Plaintiffs wrote to defendants, and in answer received a letter signed by defendants, stating that “in purchasing Mr. Robinson’s stock of goods we assumed $1,000 indebtedness on the goods. We were to pay $100 of it monthly. Before he left the store I had him to give me a list of the firms he desired me to pay first, and the amounts to each one. Your firm’s name was on the list, and the amount $25. We have lived up to our contract with him; and when he tells us who and the amount we are to pay September 9th, to the amount of $100, we will do so. Be assured you will get your pay. . . ” On the trial of a suit by plaintiffs against defendants, on which this letter was introduced in evidence, one of defendants was allowed to testify over objection: “I wrote the letter introduced by plaintiffs, bufmeant that I would pay plaintiff’s’ claim against Robinson if Robinson told us to do so; did not mean to pay it unless he did so instruct.” The overruling of the objection was assigned as error.

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

Robinson was indebted to the plaintiffs $114.91 on an account. He sold out his stock of goods to defendants, and informed plaintiffs that defendants had assumed payment of the account. Plaintiffs wrote to defendants, and in answer received a letter signed by defendants, stating that “in purchasing Mr. Robinson’s stock of goods we assumed $1,000 indebtedness on the goods. We were to pay $100 of it monthly. Before he left the store I had him to give me a list of the firms he desired me to pay first, and the amounts to each one. Your firm’s name was on the list, and the amount $25. We have lived up to our contract with him; and when he tells us who and the amount we are to pay September 9th, to the amount of $100, we will do so. Be assured you will get your pay. . . ” On the trial of a suit by plaintiffs against defendants, on which this letter was introduced in evidence, one of defendants was allowed to testify over objection: “I wrote the letter introduced by plaintiffs, bufmeant that I would pay plaintiff’s’ claim against Robinson if Robinson told us to do so; did not mean to pay it unless he did so instruct.” The overruling of the objection was assigned as error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.E. 715, 94 Ga. 687, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slater-myers-co-v-demorest-spoke-handle-co-ga-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack