Riggins v. Joseph D. Boyd Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1905 |
| Citation | 51 S.E. 434,123 Ga. 232 |
| Parties | RIGGINS v. JOSEPH D. BOYD MFG. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The trial judge committed no error requiring a reversal of the judgment below in ruling out the evidence introduced by the defendant.
Error from Superior Court, Pike County; R. B. Russell, Judge.
Action by the Joseph D. Boyd Manufacturing Company against A. D Riggins. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
G. D Dominick and E. C. Armistead, for plaintiff in error.
E. F Dupree, for defendant in error.
The trust involved in this case was construed in Riggins v Adair, 105 Ga. 727, 31 S.E. 743, where it was held that the trust created is executory, at least during the lifetime of Mrs. Riggins, and that the property of the trust estate is liable for debts created by the trustee for the benefit of such estate. In that case the trust estate was held to be bound for a debt contracted for fertilizers bought for its use. The evidence for the plaintiff in the present case made out a clear case of liability on the part of the trust estate for the amount represented by the note sued on, and, unanswered, demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount. The defendant sought to meet this by evidence which the court ruled out, and the sole question which we are to decide is whether the court committed a reversible error in ruling out this evidence, for there is no exception to the direction of a verdict by the court or to the particular verdict which was directed. Whether the court was right or wrong in the ruling complained of is, in the view which we take of the case, immaterial. If this evidence had remained in, the jury could not have lawfully found in favor of the defendant generally, nor reduced the amount of the plaintiff's proven claim. From the evidence in question it appeared "that the note sued upon was a renewal note for the balance of the $670.50 note given May 29, 1900." This last-mentioned note showed that it was given by the defendant as trustee, which fact he neither denied in his answer nor by his testimony. He did testify that at the time he bought the fertilizers for which this note was given nothing was said about his buying them as trustee. But, on the other hand, he failed to state that anything was said about his buying them, or any part of them, individually. How, then, did he buy them? Presumably, from the way he signed the note, he purchased them as trustee. He testified that he signed the original note as trustee because "they" asked him to do that, a request which was both natural and proper if he bought the fertilizers for the trust estate, and which, when made, in the absence of anything to contrary, put him upon notice that the intention of the seller was to sell the goods to him in his capacity as trustee. He said nothing to the seller to indicate that he was not purchasing all of the fertilizers for the trust estate, and when he was asked to sign the note as trustee he did so without explanation or objection. If he did not intend to contract in his capacity as trustee for the whole of the fertilizers which he purchased, the time for him to have made this known was when he was asked to do so. As we have already intimated, when he bought the fertilizers for the purchase price of which the original note was given, and signed such note in his capacity as trustee, the presumption was that he purchased the goods in his representative, and not in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial