Petit v. Teal
| Decision Date | 31 July 1876 |
| Citation | 57 Ga. 146 |
| Parties | Gilbert B. Petit, plaintiff in error. v. William Teal, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Set-off. Evidence. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1874.
The following, taken in connection with the opinion, sufficiently reports this case:
Teal sued Petit for $98 00 due him for labor, as a carpenter. Defendant's plea admitted $25 00 of this indebtedness, but alleged that the rest of the work was so badly done as to be valueless. It also pleaded, as set-off, an open account due by plaintiff to defendant, and certain over-payments which *the latter had made to the former for previous work, amounting in all to $154 00; and defendant prayed judgment for the excess due to him.
The evidence as to the amount paid by defendant to plaintiff, and as to the quality of the work done, was conflicting. Defendant testified that he was a mechanic and contractor; that he kept accounts with men employed by him in a book, andthat the account with Teal was contained therein, and was accurate. The book was offered in evidence, but rejected by the court.
The jury, under the charge of the court, found for the plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled and defendant excepted.
A. Proudfit; Wooten & Simmons, by R. H. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
R. W. Stubbs; Hall & Lofton, for defendant.
1. The defendant below admitted in his plea that the account sued on was just, to the extent of $25 00, disputing the balance. The plea presented a counter-claim, by way of open account (annexing a copy), offering to set off the same against the plaintiff's demand as admitted, and insisting that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant the overplus, "which this defendant over-paid to Teal." The items of the accouut in defendant's favor, were shingles, tools and cash. There was some evidence in support of it, the defendant himself testifying very fully to its correctness. The court, it seems, charged the jury that they could not consider over-payments, on a plea of set-off, and that the defendant could not recover, on that plea, any amount over-paid. As we understand the charge, it excluded entirely from the case the most, if not all, of the defendant's account. We infer from the evidence that the parties had had no settlement, but that the dealings between them went on for some length of time, the *plaintiff working for defendant at different jobs, and the defendant advancing him money, from time to time. This money, together with the other items charged in defendant's account, amounted, as the defendant claims, to more than all the work ever done for him by the plaintiff, including that now sued for. And he claims, also, that the latter—that is, the work now sued for—was very badly and improperly done, for which reason some of it was rejected, and the value of that accepted was only $25 00 instead of $98 50, the sum demanded for the whole. We think payments and over-payments occurring in this way, may be adjusted on a plea of set off; and if, on a fair and just accounting, the balance be in favor of the defendant, that he may have judgment for it against the plaintiff. We see no trace in the evidence of any purpose by either party to give or claim any sum by way of gratuity. If over-payments were made negligently or by mistake, they can be rectified so long as they are not barred by the statute of limitations; and if they could be recovered in an independent action, they are a proper subject of set off: Code, sections 2900, 3469. The jury allowed the whole of the plaintiff's account, and disallowed all of the defendant's. There was much conflict in the evidence, and if we were sure the case turned alone on the superiorcredibility of one set of witnesses over the other, we should not disturb the verdict; but, under the charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shields v. Carter
...the admission of declarations of a party in his own interest, were nevertheless retained. It was stated by Judge Bleckley in Petit v. Teal, 57 Ga. 146, 148, that while this change in the law might have a bearing the subject, since the necessity for the rule had abated in force, it was never......
-
Shields v. Carter
...the admission of declarations of a party in his own interest, were nevertheless retained. It was stated by Judge Bleckley in Petit v. Teal, 57 Ga. 146, 148, that while this change in the law might have a bearing upon the subject, since the necessity for the rule had abated in force, it was ......