White Stores, Inc. v. Washington
| Decision Date | 11 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 50474,No. 1,50474,1 |
| Citation | 135 Ga.App. 67,217 S.E.2d 391 |
| Parties | WHITE STORES, INC. v. Cecil WASHINGTON et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thompson & Smith, Thomas L. Thompson, Jr., Richard O. Smith, Columbus, for appellant.
Elkins, Flournoy & Garner, James A. Elkins, Jr., T. M. Flournoy, Jr., Columbus, for appellees.
In this action on account, plaintiff alleged that the defendants, Cecil and Anna Washington, were indebted to it in the amount of $754.61. The defendants denied any indebtedness. The case was tried before a jury. In lieu of a transcript of the evidence, the parties entered into an agreed stipulation of facts for determination of the issue on appeal. This stipulation is quoted in part: 'That . . . the defendant, Anna Washington,' testified 'that she did owe the plaintiff, . . ., money on her contract with the plaintiff, even though she was not sure of the exact sum.'; 'That Sgt. Evans, Credit Manager' for plaintiff testified that 'to the best of his knowledge . . . defendant owed plaintiff the sum of $932.72.'; that 'plaintiff did stipulate that there had been an error in crediting certain payments from defendant to plaintiff'; and that 'Sgt. Evans' testified that 'according to his records, said error had been corrected and that the sum of $932.72 was and is the true and just debt owed to plaintiff by defendant.' The trial court submitted the case to the jury on a special verdict requiring answers to two questions. They are: One, 'Are the defendants . . . indebted to White Stores, Inc. in any sum?' and two, 'If your answer to number 1 is 'yes,' what sum?' The jury answered the first question in the negative and a judgment for defendants was entered based upon this special finding of the jury. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied. Held:
On appeal the only issue raised is that the jury's verdict and the judgment are contrary to the evidence. In an action on account plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant is indebted to him and in a definite and correct amount. Photo. Bus., etc. v. Commercial Corp., 122 Ga.App. 825(2), 178 S.E.2d 922. After a jury verdict has been returned the evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, for every presumption and inference is in favor of the verdict. Brown v. Wingard, 122 Ga.App. 544, 177 S.E.2d 797. While the defendant Anna Washington admitted she was indebted to plaintiff, the action is a joint one against both de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Imex Intern., Inc. v. WIRES EL
... ... White Stores, Inc. v. Washington, 135 Ga.App. 67, 68, [261 Ga. App. 332] ... 217 S.E.2d 391 (1975) ... ...
-
Kroger Co. v. US Foodservice of Atlanta
...(1996). Every presumption and inference arising from the evidence must be considered in favor of the verdict. White Stores v. Washington, 135 Ga.App. 67-68, 217 S.E.2d 391 (1975). So viewed, the evidence shows that from 1994 until mid-January 1999, Kroger ordered approximately $4.5 million ......
-
Bogart v. Wis. Inst. for Torah Study
...burden of proving that defendant is indebted to him and in a definite and correct amount.” (Citation omitted.) White Stores v. Washington, 135 Ga.App. 67, 217 S.E.2d 391 (1975). Here, the Institute came forward with the March 2011 statement showing a definite amount due on Bogart's account,......
-
Lockwood v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...v. Wisc. Inst. for Torah Study, 321 Ga.App. 492, 495(3), 739 S.E.2d 465 (2013) (punctuation omitted); accord White Stores v. Washington, 135 Ga.App. 67, 67, 217 S.E.2d 391 (1975).16 Cf. Myers v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 324 Ga.App. 293, 296(2), 750 S.E.2d 378 (2013) (vacating and re......