Price v. B-Line Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | B-LINE,No. 2,No. 48005,48005,2 |
| Citation | 129 Ga.App. 34,198 S.E.2d 328 |
| Parties | Rufus G. PRICE v.SYSTEMS, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Barwick, Bentley & Binford, M. Cook Barwick, Warren W. Wills, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Rose & Stern, George S. Stern, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
B-Line Systems, Inc. sued Rufus G. Price on open account for the sum of $9,000.15, plus interest and costs. The defendant answered, denying the complaint, and pleaded an affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction and counterclaimed in two counts, seeking damages for $10,000 for plaintiff's malicious and intentional fraud in damaging defendant's business. Motions for partial summary judgment were filed by plaintiff to his main complaint, and as to defendant's counterclaims.
Said motions for summary judgment came on for separate hearings, and on October 26, 1972, judgment was rendered against defendant on his counterclaims. Judgment was thereafter rendered on December 1, 1972, on plaintiff's complaint, but premised on evidence as to the amount due and unpaid on the open account, the amount of judgment awarded was for a less sum than sued for by plaintiff.
Defendant appeals from the judgment of December 1, 1972, but does not appeal from the judgment of October 26, 1972. Held:
1. The record shows no appeal nor error enumerated as to the granting of motion for summary judgment as to defendant's counterclaims.
2. The defendant's deposition show that all invoices are correct, except one for $400, and one for $907.20. As to the latter, defendant contended by testimony that it should be reduced by 25%. The trial judge reduced this invoice by 75% (instead of 25%) and disallowed the $400 invoice, and thus, arrived at the amount of $8,373.35, for which he awarded the plaintiff a summary judgment. This was less than the amount to which plaintiff was entitled under the foregoing evidence so far as the accounts go, but of course, defendant is not in position to complain of a mistake in calculation which was unfavorable to plaintiff.
3. But even admitting the invoices to be substantially correct, except in the two instances pointed out, this is not an admission that summary judgment should have been rendered for the plaintiff. There was still left in the defendant's pleadings, undisposed of by any motion or ruling, his affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. There was a complete failure to 'pierce the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heimanson v. Meade
...required to offer any testimony to that effect for he had no burden of proof on summary judgment.' Price v. B-Line Systems, Inc., 129 Ga.App. 34, 35, 198 S.E.2d 328, 329 (1973) (Emphasis supplied.) Thus it makes no difference whether a defense, such as failure of consideration, is an affirm......
-
Atlantic Nat. Bank of Florida v. Chance
...for summary judgment, even as to such issues as the non-moving party might have the burden of proof at trial. Price v. B-Line Systems, 129 Ga.App. 34, 198 S.E.2d 328 (1973). It necessarily follows that when a collateral attack is raised as a defense in an action for domestication of a forei......
-
Sun First Nat. Bank of Orlando v. Gainesville 75, Ltd.
...rested on appellant as movant even though the burden of proof on this issue at trial would be on appellees. Price v. B-Line Systems, Inc., 129 Ga.App. 34, 198 S.E.2d 328 (1973). Appellant's affidavit attests that $64,187.32 is due and owing on the judgment. In opposition, the affidavit of M......
-
Ringer v. Lockhart, 32331
... ... Price v. B-Line Systems, ... Inc., 129 Ga.App. 34, 198 S.E.2d 328 (1973). All ... ...