Swift & Co. v. Hall, 36240
| Citation | 94 Ga.App. 239,94 S.E.2d 145 |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 36240,36240,1 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Parties | SWIFT & COMPANY v. C. A. HALL |
Syllabus by the Court.
The trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Swift & Company brought an action against C. A. Hall in which it sought to recover a sum alleged to be due on an open account. Copies of the invoices were set forth as exhibits to the plaintiff's petition. At the close of the evidence the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict which was denied, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Within thirty days the plaintiff made a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict which was denied, and it is to this judgment that the plaintiff excepts.
John Henry Poole, Tifton, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant.
1. The plaintiff's first contention is that the trial court should have granted its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the testimony of the defendant was contradictory and equivocal and should be construed most strongly against the defendant.
The defendant testified that he did not own the store where the plaintiff delivered the meat it had sold on open account, that he had loaned his son the money to purchase certain fixtures, and that when his son left the store he took it over in order to protect the money he had loaned his son. The plaintiff introduced in evidence without objection a letter and an affidavit signed by the defendant in which he denied that the business was ever his son's, and in which he declared that he owned the business. The defendant admitted signing both exhibits. Later, during the trial, the defendant testified that what he had intended to say in the exhibits was that he owned the fixtures, not the stock of goods, and that he didn't have anything to do with the purchase of the stock of goods.
The testimony of the defendant was not contradictory or equivocal so as to require it to be construed most strongly against him. The exhibits introduced in evidence without objection tended to impeach the defendant's testimony, however, even when a witness has been impeached the weight to be given to his testimony is a question for the jury. Sweet v. Awtry, 70 Ga.App. 334(2), 28 S.E.2d 154; Owens v. State, 139 Ga. 92(2), 76 S.E. 860, and this same rule applies where the witness is the defendant, Turner v. Hardy, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithloff v. Benson
...must show that the party relying on such estoppel acted on the conduct of the opposite party to his detriment. Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga.App. 239, 94 S.E.2d 145 (1956); State Farm etc. Ins. Co. v. Penrow, 142 Ga.App. 463, 236 S.E.2d 275 (1977). The evidence in this case did not conclusivel......
-
Davison v. Strickland
...and that her father was the true owner. There could not have been reversible error under these circumstances. See Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga.App. 239, 94 S.E.2d 145. 6. Appellants contend that the trial court's charge regarding the alleged coins constituted an expression that the coins The ......
-
Smith v. Varner, 48669
...Code § 38-114; Harris v. Abney, 208 Ga. 518(2), 67 S.E.2d 724; Bell v. Studdard, 220 Ga. 756, 760, 141 S.E.2d 536; Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga.App. 239, 240(2), 94 S.E.2d 145. The written instrument could be construed as an accord and satisfaction of differences and this in itself would esto......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Hall
...(Branan v. LaGrange Truck Lines, Inc., 94 Ga.App. 829, 96 S.E.2d 364); to an extra-judicial affidavit and letter (Swift & Company v. Hall, 94 Ga.App. 239, 94 S.E.2d 145); to stricken pleadings containing an admission (Bynes et al. v. Stafford, 106 Ga.App. 406, 127 S.E.2d 159), or to a signe......