Ginn v. Carithers
| Decision Date | 27 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5199.) |
| Citation | 80 S.E. 698,14 Ga.App. 298 |
| Parties | GINN v. CARITHERS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In an action against an administrator on an account for board and cash furnished the decedent, a plea that the account was paid by the decedent is properly stricken, when it fails to allege when and to whom payment was made, and avers that the defendant cannot make this allegation, because of want of sufficient information, except that the decedent paid his board monthly, as his habit was, and that he had ample money all the time to pay his debts, and was prompt to pay what he owed at maturity.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. 1798-1811, 1823-1830, 1842-1845, 1848; Dec. Dig. § 443.*]
The evidence demanded the verdict in the plaintiff's favor. Even if there was any errorin excluding evidence, the error was harmless, since, if all the evidence rejected had been admitted, the evidence would still have demanded a verdict for the plaintiff.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4171-4177; Dec. Dig. § 1052.*]
This being a suit by a married woman against an administrator, an employe of the plaintiff's husband was not incompetent to testify to transactions and communications between the plaintiff and the deceased.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 598-618; Dec. Dig. § 140.*]
The jury having rendered a verdict for a lump sum, which was larger than that authorized by the pleadings, it was not erroneous to instruct the jury to again retire and return a verdict for so much principal and so much interest. The error in the first verdict could have been corrected upon motion for new trial, by writing it down to the sum authorized by the pleadings, and the court had full authority to give the jury the direction complained of.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 791-794; Dec. Dig. § 339.*]
Error from City Court of Elberton; Geo. C. Grogan, Judge.
Action by Z. X. Carithers against J. G. Ginn, administrator. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Z. B. Rogers, of Elberton, for plaintiff in error.
Worley & Nall, of Elberton, for defendant in error.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- American Ins. Co. v. Midwest Motor Express, Inc.
-
Walker v. Crummey
...but are wanting in the essentials of such a plea. They fail to allege when andhow, and to whom, the alleged payments were made. Ginn v. Carithers, 14 Ga. App. 298, SO S. E. 698; Wortham v. Sinclair, 98 Ga. 173, 25 S. E. 414. This defense having been properly stricken, it was proper for the ......
- Ginn v. Carithers