Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman
| Decision Date | 21 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Nos. 36907,36923,s. 36907,2 |
| Citation | 101 S.E.2d 220,96 Ga.App. 739 |
| Parties | GORDY TIRE COMPANY. v. L. W. BULMAN. L. W. BULMAN. v. GORDY TIRE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The amended petition being an action in the Jack Jones form on open account was not subject to any of the demurrers interposed thereto.
2. The evidence did not demand a verdict for the plaintiff and, after the jury had failed to agree on a verdict and a mistrial had been declared, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the motion for a judgment in accordance with the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict.
Clinton J. Morgan, Wright, Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
A. Cecil Palmour, Summerville, for defendant in error.
Gordy Tire Company sued Leonard W. Bulman, doing business as Bulman Oil Company, on an alleged open account in the sum of $948.80, plus interest, at the rate of 7 percent per annum from August 1, 1956. The petition was in the short form, usually referred to as the Jack Jones form, and the plaintiff attached thereto what appears to be copies of its ledger sheets showing entries beginning on December 11, 1954, and running through one entry dated simply July, 1956. These copies of the ledger sheets showed a beginning balance due of $1,698.48 with entries of charges and credits thereon, unidentified except as to date and amount, and closing with a balance of $948.80, the principal amount sued for. The defendant filed general and special demurrers to the petition and the trial court entered a judgment overruling all grounds of the demurrer except two which attacked the petition on the ground that the copy of the account did not constitute the copy of an account required by law to be attached, the same being 'only an unintelligible jumble of figures and numbers, none of which are identified with either purchases, payments or balances,' and on the ground that the 'account does not show what, if anything, was purchased by defendant, nor does it name any item that was allegedly purchased nor when any item was purchased.' In response to this order, the plaintiff filed an amendment and attached thereto eight sheets which appear to be copies of invoices of merchandise delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant on various dates covered by the ledger sheets previously exhibited, but not embracing all of the items of charge or credit set forth thereon, the total of said eight invoices being $964.80. Each of these invoices also carried a clause in the nature of a title retention by the plaintiff of the merchandise delivered thereon, but the amendment to the petition contained no language indicating in any manner an intention by the plaintiff to rely on anything other than the original action on open account. The defendant filed a renewed general demurrer on the ground that the amendment materially changed the cause of action in that the original suit was on an open account but that the amendment purported to set up an express contract; on the ground that the documents attached to the petition were not copies of an account but were copies of express contracts which contradicted and nullified the general allegations of the petition; and on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to amend the petition within the time and manner allowed for amendment by the court and its prior order. The court overruled all grounds of this demurrer. The defendant also filed an answer in which he denied any indebtedness to the plaintiff. The case proceeded to trial before a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence the plaintiff made a motion for a directed verdict which the court denied. The jury was unable to agree upon a verdict and the court declared a mistrial. Thereafter the plaintiff made a motion for a judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zampatti v. TRADEBANK INTERN. FRANCHISING
...12, 73 S.E.2d 82 (1952). A suit on an open account may be based on either an express or implied promise to pay. Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman, 96 Ga.App. 739, 101 S.E.2d 220 (1957). However, there cannot be other elements in dispute other than When the value of the goods and services was not agr......
-
Imex Intern., Inc. v. WIRES EL
...501 S.E.2d 30 (1998); Gage v. Tiffin Motor Homes, 153 Ga.App. 704, 706-707(1), 266 S.E.2d 345 (1980); Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman, 96 Ga.App. 739, 741(1), 101 S.E.2d 220 (1957). An action on open account is a simplified pleading procedure where a party can recover what he was justly and equita......
-
Gage v. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc.
...Furthermore, "(a)n action on open account may be based either on an express or an implied promise to pay . . ." Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman, 96 Ga.App. 739, 742, 101 S.E.2d 220, 223. Accord, Hurt & Quinn, Inc. v. Keen, 89 Ga.App. 4, 6, 78 S.E.2d 345. Accordingly, Gage maintained an open accoun......
-
Williams v. Commercial Tire Co.
...Properly construed, this was an action on open account and not a suit on an unconditional contract in writing. Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman, 96 Ga.App. 739(1), 101 S.E.2d 220. Accordingly, the defendant's answer which denied the allegations of indebtedness and demand for payment was sufficient ......