Walburn v. Taunton
| Citation | 107 Ga.App. 411,130 S.E.2d 279 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 39975,No. 3,39975,3 |
| Parties | Jesse F. WALBURN v. Mack TAUNTON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
T. E. Duncan, LaGrange, for plaintiff in error.
E. W. Fleming, LaGrange, for defendant in error.
Sullabus Opinion by the Court
The plaintiff (defendant in error) sued the defendant (plaintiff in error) for $756.16 'by reason of an account owed by defendant to plaintiff for building materials and labor furnished for the building of defendant's home.' The defendant denied any indebtedness and alleged facts to show that his indebtedness to the plaintiff for furnishing labor and materials for the construction of his house had been fully settled. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount sued for. The defendant made a motion for new trial on the general and three special grounds and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in accordance with his motion for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. The defendant assigns error on the judgments of the trial court overruling these motions. Held:
1. A witness for the plaintiff testified that he went over with the defendant an itemized account of the building material and labor furnished, on which a credit of $6,500 had been given, showing a balance of $725.16, and that the defendant promised to pay the remainder of the account. Though there was conflicting evidence, this was some evidence of the terms of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to support the account sued on, and met the requirement of proof laid down in Barrington v. Davis Jenkins & Sons, 44 Ga.App. 682(4), 162 S.E. 642; McCoy v. Meador, 140 Ga. 253, 78 S.E. 848; and Sapp Bros. v. Mathis, 12 Ga.App. 273, 77 S.E. 102.
2. The trial court erred in admitting in evidence a document (attached to the plaintiff's petition as an exhibit), which the plaintiff's witness identified as a recapitulation of the account, testifying that he had compared it with his records and the items were identical with the records made under his supervision from the original tickets, which were purchase orders. Martin v. Baldwin, 215 Ga. 293, 302, 110 S.E.2d 344. The record shows that this document was not an original record (see Greene, Georgia Law of Evidence, 620, § 313; Huff, The New Georgia Business Entries...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDaniel v. Gangarosa
...Pilgreen's, Inc., 117 Ga.App. 260(2), 160 S.E.2d 439; Douglas v. American Cas. Co., 106 Ga.App. 744, 128 S.E.2d 364; Walburn v. Taunton, 107 Ga.App. 411, 130 S.E.2d 279; Hirsch's v. Adams, 117 Ga.App. 847, 162 S.E.2d 243; and Mabry v. Henley, 123 Ga.App. 561, 181 S.E.2d 884, are not contrar......
-
Burson v. Copeland
...reversible error. "The trial judge's refusal to charge a pertinent and correct request is reversible error. [Cit.]" Walburn v. Taunton, 107 Ga.App. 411, 412, 130 S.E.2d 279. The charge requested by appellant was as follows: "I charge you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that it is a well recognized p......
-
Mabry v. Henley, 45762
...or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter.' See Walburn v. Taunton, 107 Ga.App. 411(2), 130 S.E.2d 279; Home Finance Co. v. Smith, 116 Ga.App. 76(1), 156 S.E.2d 522. As to the exhibits in question, the defendant failed to me......
-
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Dauer
...under Code Ann. § 38-711 (Ga.L.1952, p. 177). It was an invoice of another business, not that of the defendant. See Walburn v. Taunton, 107 Ga.App. 411(2), 130 S.E.2d 279. However, we note that the witness was allowed to testify as to the same matter which defendant contends was erroneously......