TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harris v. Dover

Harris v. Dover, 89 S.E. 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 28, 1916
Docket
No. 6831
Judges
Hodges
Citations
89 S.E. 35118 Ga. App. 3201916 Ga. App. LEXIS 333
Summary
Complaint; from municipal court of Macon — Judge Chambers. June 23, 1915.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hodges

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hodges, J.

1. In order for a defendant in a suit upon an open account to prove payments, a special plea must be filed, setting forth the payments, and evidence of payment is inadmissible under a general denial of indebtedness.

2. Testimony that the proprty, the purchase-price of which was sued for, was shipped to a person other than the defendant was properly excluded, on objection by the plaintiff, upon the ground that the bill of lading of the shipment was the highest and best evidence, it being admitted in the evidence that the defendant made the purchase, and the defendant having testified that he made a payment for the property to the plaintiff’s agent.

3. There was no error in sustaining the objection of the plaintiff to the questions propounded to her husband, as to who bought his business, upon his testifying that he had sold it and given the plaintiff the money arising from the sale. It being admitted that the defendant purchased the property sued for, any evidence as to whom he sold his business 'to was irrelevant.

4. The charge of the court on the question of agency, while not applicable to the issues involved, was harmless.

5. The court did not err in not charging the jury on the question as to alleged payment, except the payment admitted in open court and set out in the account sued on; and there was no error in instructing the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff for the amount sued for, that amount being the original purchase-price of the property, less the payment admitted in the suit. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 11933: 11967: 219232026peak 1967 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rawleigh Co. v. Royal119 S.E. 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
  2. Pilgrim Health & Life Insurance v. Jenkins170 S.E. 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933)
  3. Motor Contract Co. v. Wigington157 S.E.2d 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
  4. R. H. Macey & Co. v. Chancey157 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967) · Concurrence

Most recent

  1. Motor Contract Co. v. Wigington157 S.E.2d 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
  2. R. H. Macey & Co. v. Chancey157 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967) · Concurrence
  3. Pilgrim Health & Life Insurance v. Jenkins170 S.E. 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933)
  4. Rawleigh Co. v. Royal119 S.E. 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list