Crump v. Ojay Spread Co., 34315
| Decision Date | 21 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 34315,34315,1 |
| Citation | 87 Ga.App. 250,73 S.E.2d 331 |
| Parties | CRUMP v. OJAY SPREAD CO., Inc |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harbin M. King, Calhoun, for plaintiff in error.
Henry L. Barnett, Calhoun, for defendant in error.
1. The plaintiff, Wick Crump, testified in effect: He was employed by the Ojay Spread Company and was working at the company's plant during the years 1946, 1947, and 1948, as a night watchman, and he also cleaned up and oiled the machinery at night. During the year 1946, he had a conversation with Irving Ostuw, the general manager of the Ojay Spread Company, who told him to employ someone to help him with his work, if he needed someone, and to pay a reasonable price therefor, and the company would repay him. In accordance with the instructions from Ostuw, he went ahead and got Joe Stroud to help him, and Stroud helped him with his work from May 9, 1947, to December 31, 1948, and he paid Stroud $15 each week during that time. He told Ostuw what he was paying Stroud each week, and Ostuw said it was reasonable enough. He had made demand for his money, but Ostuw always said he was in a hurry and would see him later. Crump remembered making a demand for the money on January 25, 1950, because when he came in the next day he was laid off.
Eighty-seven receipts for $15 each, from Joe Stroud to Wick Crump, running from May 9, 1947, to December 31, 1948, were introduced in evidence, the first of these being as follows: The other eighty-six receipts were in the exact language of the one quoted, except as to the dates. Melba Crump, daughter of the plaintiff, testified that she wrote the eighty-seven receipts for her father.
Irving Ostuw, a witness for the defendant, testified to the effect that he did not authorize Wick Cump to employ Joe Stroud or anyone else to assist or help Crump in his work for Ojay Spread Company; that saw him at the plant of the and never saw him at the plant of the spread company, so far as he knew; and that Stroud was not authorized to work at the spread company's plant when he (Ostuw) was the general manager, and he never promised to pay Crump anything for Stroud or anyone else in helping Crump in his work at the plant. Ostuw was the general manager of the Ojay Spread Company during 1946 and until August, 1947.
William R. Pittman, who succeeded Ostuw as general manager of the spread company and who was general manager from August, 1947, through 1949, testified to the effect that he did not authroize Wick Crump to employ Joe Stroud to help or assist Crump in his work at the spread company's plant, and did not agree to pay Stroud anything or to reimburse Crump for any amount expended by him in that manner; and that he did not know Joe Stroud and had never seen him at the Ojay Spread Company's plant.
Two other witnesses testified that they had worked at the Ojay Spread Company's plant at night during 1947 and 1948, and that they had never...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp.
...Co. v. Pope, 95 Ga.App. 211, 97 S.E.2d 590 (1957), reversed on other grounds 213 Ga. 360, 99 S.E.2d 216 (1957); Crump v. Ojay Spread Co., 87 Ga.App. 250, 73 S.E.2d 331 (1952); Schafer Baking Co. v. Greenberg, 51 Ga.App. 324, 180 S.E. 499 (1935); Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 34 Ga.App. ......
-
Georgia-Carolina Brick & Tile Co. v. Brown
...Broyles v. Johnson, supra; Simonton Const. Co. v. Pope, 95 Ga.App. 211, 97 S.E.2d 590, (revd. on other grounds); Crump v. Ojay Spread Co., 87 Ga.App. 250, 73 S.E.2d 331; and Schafer Baking Co. v. Greenberg, supra; and cits.; and we hold that, since the evidence authorized a finding of bad f......
-
G. E. C. Corp. v. Levy
...less than the amount sued for.' Simonton Construction Co. v. Pope, 95 Ga.App. 211(3c), 97 S.E.2d 590. See Crump v. Ojay Spread Co., Inc., 87 Ga.App. 250, 252, 73 S.E.2d 331. Of course, Code § 20-1404 does not allow recovery for mere refusal to pay as pointed out in an exhaustive discussion ......
-
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boney, 41838
...Co. v. Pope, 95 Ga.App. 211, 217(3-c), 97 S.E.2d 590, reversed on other grounds in 213 Ga. 360, 99 S.E.2d 216; Crump v. Ojay Spread Co., 87 Ga.App. 250, 252(2), 73 S.E.2d 331; Royal Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 105 Ga.App. 746(3), 125 S.E.2d 709. Under these decisions the verdict is substantially les......
-
Appendix I University Computing Co. v.Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974)
...v. Pope, 95 Ga.App. 211, 97 S.E. 2d 590 (1957), reversed on other grounds, 213 Ga. 360, 99 S.E.2d 216 (1957); Crump v. Ojay Spread Co. , 87 Ga.App. 250, 73 S.E.2d 331 (1952); Schafer Baking Co. v. Greenberg, 51 Ga.App. 324, 180 S.E. 499 (1935); Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 34 Ga.App. 5......