Raulerson v. Jones
| Decision Date | 14 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 45447,45447,3 |
| Citation | 177 S.E.2d 181,122 Ga.App. 440 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Catherine RAULERSON v. Edward L. JONES |
Harris, Cahnce & McCracken, Albert M. Pickett, Augusta, for appellant.
Nicholson & Fleming, John Fleming, Augusta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case involves dispossessory and distress warrants issued to obtain rent on certain premises leased and possession of the rented property. By consent of counsel for both parties the cases were consolidated and tried without the intervention of a jury. After hearing evidence upon the issues raised and the argument of counsel, the court released the property and denied the claim of the plaintiff for the rent due. A motion for new trial as amended was filed, heard and overruled. The appeal is from the judgment in these cases in favor of the defendant, and error is enumerated as to (1) the overruling of the motion for new trial, as amended; (2) the failure to admit into evidence an agreement in carbon form, signed by the parties; and (3) the admission into evidence of appellee's testimony establishing an oral agreement between the parties, which oral agreement waives certain monthly payments arising from the previously executed written lease agreement between the parties. Held:
1. Where more than one copy of a document is executed at the same time any copy thereof is a duplicate original, and it is primary evidence of the agreement instead of secondary evidence. It was error to exclude the document even though it was a carbon typewriter reproduction. While the original had not been signed by all the parties, this document was a complete agreement executed by and between the parties. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. Purvis, 6 Ga.App. 275(3), 65 S.E. 35; Beard v. Westmoreland, 90 Ga.App. 632, 637(6), 84 S.E.2d 93; Campbell v. Pure Oil Co., 92 Ga.App. 523, 88 S.E.2d 630 and cits.; Carmichael Tile Co. v. McClelland, 213 Ga. 656(4), 100 S.E.2d 902. The court erred in excluding the properly executed contract offered in evidence by the appellant and also in denying the motion for new trial based on this disallowance of legal evidence.
2. While the terms of a written contract cannot be subsequently modified by a parol agreement, yet it may be modified by a subsequent contract wholly in parol. American National Ins. Co. v. Lynch, 49 Ga.App. 580(1), 176 S.E. 546; Cooper v. G.E. Construction Co., 116 Ga.App. 690, 694, 158 S.E.2d 305; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baptiste v. the State.
...302(4), 108 S.E. 246 (1921)), or was not a copy executed at the same time as the “original” of the document. See Raulerson v. Jones, 122 Ga.App. 440(1), 177 S.E.2d 181 (1970). Nonetheless, the trial court did not err when it denied the motion to suppress. “The best evidence which exists of ......
-
Strickland v. Foundation Life Ins. Co., 48325
...of the pen or the typewriter, are admissible as primary evidence because they are considered duplicate originals. Raulerson v. Jones, 122 Ga.App. 440, 177 S.E.2d 181. Therefore, copies of duplicate originals are admissible under Code Ann. § 38-710, without accounting for the original. Cf. P......
-
Bullard v. Carreras, s. 74167
...adduced at trial reveals that the parties executed several duplicate originals of the promissory note. See Raulerson v. Jones, 122 Ga.App. 440, 441(1), 177 S.E.2d 181 (1970). Appellant testified that his exhibit, P-1, was such an original of the promissory note and that it was signed in his......
- Department of Public Safety v. Orr, 45431