Hunter v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 23 March 1901
• Parties: HUNTER . v. SANDERS et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

38 S.E. 406

113 Ga. 140

HUNTER .

v.SANDERS et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 23, 1901.

BURDEN OF PROOF—CONTRACT WITH AGENT— CONSTRUCTION—APPEAL—REVIEW.

1. When a defendant admits enough in his answer to make out a prima facie case for the plaintiff, the burden of making out his defense rests upon the former.

2. An agreement by a purchasing agent to abide by his principal's weights and classification of the goods purchased, if correctly made, binds the agent to accept as correct statements of weight and classification arrived at by the principal in the due prosecution of his business, according to the established system by which it is conducted; and in such a case the burden is on the agent to show that the statements were in fact incorrect.

3. As the verdict complained of was the only outcome of the pleadings and evidence which was legally possible. It must stand, irrespectively of the assignments of error embraced in the motion for a new trial. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Taylor county; W. B. Butt, Judge.

Action by Sanders, Swann & Co. against J. R. Hunter. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

J. H. Martin, for plaintiff in error.

Monroe G. Ogden, for defendants in error.

LEWIS, J. Sanders, Swann & Co. brought suit in Taylor superior court against J. R. Hunter on an open account for $359.18. The defendant answered, denying any indebtedness to the plaintiffs, and setting up a counterclaim of $915.95, for which he prayed judgment It appears that the defendant was employed by the plaintiffs as their agent to purchase cotton for them. The plaintiffs agreed to furnish the defendant with money necessary to buy the cotton, and to notify him daily of the market price. The defendant was to receive as compensation for his services the difference between the price he should pay for the cotton and the highest limit allowed therefor by the plaintiffs. The defendant In his answer admitted' having received from the plaintiffs under the contract of employment $10,444.29, as alleged in the petition. It was admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendant shipped them 703 bales of cotton. The contention as to the balance due grew out of th.e difference between the parties as to the correct weights and classification of the cotton shipped by the defendant to the plaintiffs. As to this the defendant testified: "I agreed to abide by their grading and weights, provided these were done correctly. * * * The plaintiffs did not give correct grades, but cut down below." On the other hand, the plaintiffs introduced testimony to show that the cotton received by them from the defendant was correctly weighed and graded according to their established system, and that the result left a balance due by the defendant as set out In the petition. No attempt was made by the defendant to prove that the plaintiffs' system of weighing and grading cotton was at fault, nor, other than as already set forth, that the grading of this particular cotton was at fault. The jury found for the plaintiffs the full amount sued for. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted.

1. The defendant, presumably to obtain the privilege of opening and concluding the argument, made admissions in his...