Luke v. Mayo
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hodges, J.
1. Mayo sued Luke on an open account for the purchase-money of a certain crop, alleging that Luke agreed to purchase the crop for $125. The bill of particulars showed a credit of $75, and the prayer was for a judgment for $50, alleged to be the balance due. The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted in the sum sued for; that though he did buy the crop, his agreement with the plaintiff was that he should *615 pay $75, which, was paid, and that the $50 should be collected from a third person. Such a plea did not admit a prima facie case, and the defendant was not entitled to open and conclude the argument. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168 ( 35 S. E. 345 ); Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. App. 363 ( 58 S. E. 222 ).
Decided September 21, 1916. Complaint; from Irwin superior court (transferred from city court of Ocilla) — Judge Graham presiding. April 28, 1916. McDonald & Bennett, for plaintiff in-error. Melvin Meeks, Philip Newhern, contra.
2. If the judge’s instructions were inaccurate aá to' some of the contentions of the parties, they were harmless; and, the jury having resolved the issue of fact in favor of the plaintiff, and their finding being authorized by the evidence, this court will not disturb the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.