Hutcheson v. American Machine & Foundry Co.
| Decision Date | 11 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 48320,48320,3 |
| Citation | 129 Ga.App. 602,200 S.E.2d 371 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Hoyt A. HUTCHESON v. AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY |
Dodd, Driver, McClatchey & Connell, Devereaux F. McClatchey, IV, Atlanta, for appellant.
William F. Lozier, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
American Machine & Foundry Company, plaintiff-appellee, brought an action to recover rents allegedly due for rental of a tire retreading machine leased to Hoyt A. Hutcheson, d/b/a Mableton Tire & Battery Company, the defendant-appellant. The jury found a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $15,000, which was less than the amount sued for, that amount being $20,537.26. The defendant appealed to this court enumerating as error admission of certain evidence, the overruling of his motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, and that the judgment entered was erroneous because the only evidence to sustain the verdict was the evidence allegedly illegally admitted. Held:
1. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The lease required payments of 3 cents for each pound of rubber, or other material processed through the machines. It also contained a proviso requiring a minimum rent of $3,600 a lease-year, provided for rebates if the yearly rent exceeded $4,800. A stated time in the future was provided as the beginning of the first 'lease-year' and the lease provided that until that time no minimum rent was required. There was a provision therein for the keeping of records by the defendant as to purchases of rubber and materials for use in the machine and for the right of the plaintiff to inspect these records; and provided for making monthly statements showing the calculation of the monthly payments required. These report forms used had a place for a report of poundage based on inventory and purchases of materials, and another based on the poundage of the material actually processed by the machine. The defendant paid monthly rentals based on the inventory and purchases method by reports showing the poundage of 587,000 pounds ($17,610). The meter on the machine showed the time the machine was used and it used material at approximately four pounds a minute. The meter would only measure up to 100,000 minutes and would then return to zero and begin over again. The machine, itself, showed 1,172,476 pounds were used ($35,174.28), contrary to the defendant's contention that it showed only 376,476 pounds were used ($11,294.28). The defendant based this contention on the ground that the figures contended were based on the difference in what the meter showed at the beginning and what it showed at the end, without taking into account it had passed the 100,000 mark twice before registering the last figure. This results in 200,000 more minutes, or 800,000 more pounds of material actually processed at 3 cents a pound. That is, $24,000. By deducting the rent paid ($17,610) from the rent shown by the machine ($35,174.28) a balance owed for rent of $17,564.28 is shown. The evidence, which we will deal with in the following divisions of this opinion, was also amply sufficient to authorize the verdict rendered.
2. An employee of plaintiff made a trip to defendant's plant to review defendant's records and prepared an 'audit report' in writing. This report, together with his testimony in reference thereto, was admitted in evidence over the defendant's objection that the report and testimony was hearsay. This report and the testimony of the employee reflected the number of pounds of retread material purchased by the defendant and was based on the invoice records made available by the defendant to the plaintiff's employee. Subsequently, pursuant to a notice to produce 'all' of its invoices, etc., showing purchases of retread materials, defendant produced numerous records including invoices and these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotton v. John W. Eshelman & Sons, Inc.
...State, 165 Ga. 55(3), 139 S.E. 877.' Bible v. Somers Construction Co., 197 Ga. 761(2), 30 S.E.2d 623; Hutcheson v. American Machine & Foundry Co., 129 Ga.App. 602, 603, 200 S.E.2d 371 and 3. The Cottons contend that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain computer printouts......
-
Womack v. State
...(1944) ; Cotton v. John W. Eshelman & Sons, Inc., 137 Ga.App. 360, 363(2), 223 S.E.2d 757 (1976) ; Hutcheson v. Am. Machine & Foundry Co., 129 Ga.App. 602, 603(2), 200 S.E.2d 371 (1973). See generally Paul S. Milich, "Summary of Voluminous Documents," Courtroom Handbook on Georgia Evidence ......
-
White v. Dilworth
...as would be necessary for the introduction of his document as such a summary thereof. Compare Hutcheson v. American Machine etc., Co., 129 Ga.App. 602, 603(2), 200 S.E.2d 371 (1973). Appellant, at all times during the trial, sought introduction of his summary as independent secondary eviden......
-
Wickes Lumber v. Energy Efficient Homes, Inc., 60821
...record, is introduced to summarize admissible but voluminous or complex records. See generally Hutcheson v. American Machine &c. Co., 129 Ga.App. 602, 603(2), 200 S.E.2d 371 (1973). Those cases have no application where, as here, the "summary" is itself a business record admissible under Co......