Atlanta Northern Ry. Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 15 June 1917
• Docket Number: 8091.
• Citation: 92 S.E. 975,20 Ga.App. 247
• Parties: ATLANTA NORTHERN RY. CO. v. BROWN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

92 S.E. 975

20 Ga.App. 247

ATLANTA NORTHERN RY. CO. v. BROWN.

No. 8091.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

June 15, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

"Where any suit is instituted or defended by a corporation, the opposite party shall not be admitted to testify in his own behalf to transactions or communications solely with a deceased or insane officer or agent of the corporation." Civ. Code 1910, § 5858(3). In construing this section this court has held: "Besides the deceased agent of the corporation, there must be some other person present, related in some way to the corporation, before the opposite party will be competent to testify to transactions or communications had with such agent. The mere presence of a stranger, who was in no wise concerned or interested for the corporation in regard to the matter concerning which the transactions or communications were had with the deceased agent of the corporation, would not make the evidence of the survivor admissible in reference to such transactions or communications." New Ware Furniture Co. v Reynolds, 16 Ga.App. 19, 84 S.E. 491(2). See, also Augusta Naval Stores Co. v. Forlaw, 133 Ga. 138 149, 65 S.E. 370; Register v. Aultman & Taylor Co., 106 Ga. 331, 332, 32 S.E. 116; Merchants' National Bank of Savannah v. Demere, 92 Ga. 735(4), 740, 19 S.E 38; American Harrow Co. v. Dolvin, 119 Ga. 186, 45 S.E. 983.

(a) Testimony from the plaintiff as to transactions and conversation had by him solely with W. C. Lindsey, since deceased, as agent for the Atlanta Northern Railway Company was competent, since it was shown that said transactions and conversation were had in the presence of another person, then employed by the corporation, and therefore connected with, concerned and interested for the corporation in regard to the transactions had with the deceased agent of the corporation, who was in fact introduced as a witness in behalf of said corporation, and who was competent to testify as to the identical conversation and transactions.

(b) The witness in whose presence the transactions and conversation between the plaintiff and the deceased agent of the corporation were had, and who was then in the employ of said corporation, but not actually engaged in the furtherance of the corporation's business at the precise time of said transactions and conversation, was nevertheless such a person as "would be interested to remember what occurred favorably to the...