Townsend v. Hague

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Townsend v. Hague

159 S.E. 748, 43 Ga. App. 595, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 482

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 17, 1931

Docket21158

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 S.E. 748 (Townsend v. Hague) 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

Townsend v. Hague, 159 S.E. 748, 43 Ga. App. 595, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit on a contract for services rendered by the plaintiff, upon proof merely of the rendition of services by the plaintiff as contracted for, there is no presumption of payment, but there is a presumption of nonpayment. Although the evidence presents an issue of fact as to whether the services were contracted for and rendered as alleged by the plaintiff, yet where there is no plea of payment and no evidence tending to establish payment, the admission in evidence of testimony of the plaintiff that the defendant’s intestate, to whom the alleged services were rendered, had not paid the plaintiff for the services amounted to no more than a corroboration of the presumption of nonpayment; and, although such testimony was inadmissible under the provisions of section 5858 (1) of the Civil Code of 1910, as being testimony as to transaction between the plaintiff and the intestate, the admission in evidence of such testimony was nevertheless harmless to the defendant, and was therefore not error. As a case directly in point, see Lerche v. Brasher, 104 N. Y. 157, which is cited with approval in Tippin v. Brockwell, 89 Ga. 467 (2) (15 S. E. 539).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict found for the plaintiff, and no error of law appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J.. and'Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit on a contract for services rendered by the plaintiff, upon proof merely of the rendition of services by the plaintiff as contracted for, there is no presumption of payment, but there is a presumption of nonpayment. Although the evidence presents an issue of fact as to whether the services were contracted for and rendered as alleged by the plaintiff, yet where there is no plea of payment and no evidence tending to establish payment, the admission in evidence of testimony of the plaintiff that the defendant’s intestate, to whom the alleged services were rendered, had not paid the plaintiff for the services amounted to no more than a corroboration of the presumption of nonpayment; and, although such testimony was inadmissible under the provisions of section 5858 (1) of the Civil Code of 1910, as being testimony as to transaction between the plaintiff and the intestate, the admission in evidence of such testimony was nevertheless harmless to the defendant, and was therefore not error. As a case directly in point, see Lerche v. Brasher, 104 N. Y. 157, which is cited with approval in Tippin v. Brockwell, 89 Ga. 467 (2) (15 S. E. 539).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict found for the plaintiff, and no error of law appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J.. and'Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E. 748, 43 Ga. App. 595, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-hague-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack