Martin & Lanier Paint Co. v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 26 July 1921 |
| Docket Number | 12517. |
| Citation | 108 S.E. 246,27 Ga.App. 302 |
| Parties | MARTIN & LANIER PAINT CO. v. DANIELS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Error from City Court of Blakely; A. H. Gray, Judge.
Action by the Martin & Lanier Paint Company against J. B. Daniels. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
E. L Smith, of Edison, for plaintiff in error.
B. W Fortson, of Arlington, for defendant in error.
1. The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the defendant's answer.
2. The amended answer was not subject to general demurrer.
3. Conceding that the court erred in overruling some of the special demurrers interposed to the amended answer, it appears with reasonable certainty from the facts of the case that no injury resulted to the plaintiff in error, and therefore a new trial will not be granted because of such errors. See, in this connection, Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co. v. Vaughan, 9 Ga.App. 371(5), 71 S.E. 691.
4. Upon the call of the case for trial, counsel for the plaintiff company, in response to a notice from the defendant to produce certain letters alleged to have been mailed to the plaintiff, read affidavits from all the partners of the plaintiff company showing that no such letters had ever been received by them or the company. Subsequently, upon the trial, the defendant was permitted, over the plaintiff's objection, to prove that he had written such letters to the plaintiff company, and had properly addressed and stamped the envelopes and placed them in the post office; that his return address was upon the envelopes, and that the letters had never been returned to him; that the letters which he (the defendant) held in his hands were duplicate or carbon copies of the letters mailed to the plaintiff company--that they were made by the same pencil at the same time. The plaintiff objected to this evidence, and also to the introduction of the letters themselves, on the grounds that the originals of the letters had not been sufficiently accounted for to authorize the introduction of secondary evidence, and that the evidence was irrelevant and immaterial, since the uncontradicted affidavits of all the members of the plaintiff company, which were read in response to the notice to produce the letters, showed that the letters had never been received by the company, and therefore the presumption that they had been received was completely rebutted. Another...
To continue reading
Request your trial