Dodge v. Hatchett

• Decision Date: 03 November 1903
• Citation: 45 S.E. 667,118 Ga. 883
• Parties: DODGE. v. HATCHETT.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

45 S.E. 667

118 Ga. 883

DODGE.

v.HATCHETT.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 3, 1903.

ACCOUNTING BY AGENT—SALE OP PRINCIPAL'S PROPERTY—BURDEN OF PROOF.

1. It is the duty of an agent to keep his accounts in a regular manner, and to be always ready with them, supported by proper vouchers, whenever an accounting is reasonably requested, 2. When property has been delivered to an agent to sell and account for the proceeds, in a suit by the principal for an accounting, after it has been shown that the property delivered to the agent has been sold, the burden of proof is upon the agent to show either that he has accounted for the proceeds, or some sufficient reason why he has failed to do so.

v 2. See Principal and Agent, vol. 40, Cent Dig. 172.

3. Applying the principles above stated to the present case, the errors in the charge of the judge were of such a character as to require the granting of a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Macon; Robt. Hodges, Judge.

Action by A. L. Dodge against W. P. Hatchett. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Hardeman, Davis, Turner & Jones, for plaintiff in error.

John R. Cooper, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. Dodge sued Hatchett, alleging that he delivered to the defendant, in trust, and to be sold for the account of the plaintiff, and the proceeds returned to him, certain personal property, consisting of horses, mules, and a saddle and bridle, all of the value of $850; that the defendant sold and disposed of the property, and has accounted to plaintiff only for the sum of $435; that plaintiff has demanded of the defendant the remainder of the proceeds, which he fails and refuses to pay over. It is alleged that by reason of these facts the defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $415, besides interest. The defendant answered, admitting that the property had been delivered to him as alleged, but denied that it was of the value alleged, and set up that the amount paid to plaintiff and the expenses incurred in taking care of and selling the property amounted to more than its value. He also denied that any demand had been made upon him, or that he was indebted to plaintiff in any sum whatever. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant; and, the plaintiff's motion for a new trial having been overruled, he excepted.

The theory of the plaintiff's case, as indicated by his petition, was that the defendant was his agent to sell and account. There was evidence for the plaintiff tending to show that this was the true relation between the parties. If such was the case, it was the duty of the agent to keep and render...