Professional Ins. Services, Inc. v. Sizemore Elec. Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 20 September 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 77088,77088 |
Citation | 373 S.E.2d 276,188 Ga. App. 463 |
Parties | PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. v. SIZEMORE ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Billy R. Smith, for appellant.
John L. Blandford, Chamblee, for appellee.
PlaintiffProfessional Insurance Services, Inc., brought this suit on open account against Sizemore Electric Company, Inc.It contended that defendant was indebted to it in the amount of $8,429.57 and that that sum represented the balance due for the provisions of various insurance coverages.
At trial, plaintiff's president testified that the balance shown on plaintiff's ledger sheet, $8,429.57, accurately reflected the amount of defendant's indebtedness to plaintiff.No objection was made with respect to this oral evidence.
Plaintiff did not introduce its ledger sheet or any other documents into evidence and, at the close of plaintiff's case, defendant moved for a directed verdict.The trial court granted the motion, ruling that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case since it did not introduce documentary evidence reflecting the balance due.The jury obligingly returned a verdict in favor of defendant.Judgment was entered accordingly and plaintiff appealed.Held:
1.If there is "any evidence" creating a material issue of fact, a motion for a directed verdict cannot be granted.Little v. Little, 173 Ga.App. 116, 325 S.E.2d 624;OCGA § 9-11-50(a).Was "any evidence" creating a material issue of fact introduced in the case sub judice?Yes, it was.
Thomas, etc., Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Mill, etc., Co., 24 Ga.App. 749(2)102 S.E. 135.Thus, in a suit on open account, a prima facie case is made by a plaintiff where oral evidence concerning the balance due is introduced without objection even though documents setting forth the balance due are not received in evidence.Thomas, etc., Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Mill, etc., Co., 24 Ga.App. 749(2), 102 S.E. 135, supra.See alsoRothstein v. Mirvis & Fox, Inc., 155 Ga.App. 79, 80(2)270 S.E.2d 301.
In the case sub judice, oral evidence concerning the amount of defendant's indebtedness to plaintiff was introduced without objection.This evidence made out a prima facie case and it was...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Kroger Co. v. US Foodservice of Atlanta
...that she had properly credited Kroger's account for all shorts, returns, or damaged products. See Professional Ins. Svcs. v. Sizemore Elec. Co., 188 Ga.App. 463, 373 S.E.2d 276 (1988). Moore explained that certain credits due on an invoice might not have appeared promptly on a statement bec......
-
Roberson v. OCWEN FEDERAL BANK FSB
...into evidence as an exhibit to the affidavit as a business record exception to the hearsay rule. Professional Ins. Svcs., v. Sizemore Elec. Co., 188 Ga.App. 463, 464(1), 373 S.E.2d 276 (1988). However, although the defendant objected to the admission of the affidavit in support of plaintiff......
-
Kemira, Inc. v. Williams Investigative & Sec. Services, Inc.
...Ga.App. 749(2) (102 SE 135). See also Rothstein v. Mirvis & Fox, 155 Ga.App. 79, 80(2) (270 SE2d 301)." Professional Ins. Svc. v. Sizemore Elec. Co., 188 Ga.App. 463(1), 373 S.E.2d 276. "In the absence of legal error, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to interfere with a verdict su......
- Allison v. State, s. 77063