Crockett & Sons v. Roebuck
Supreme Court of Georgia
Debtor and Creditor. Partnership. Verdict. Practice m Superior Court. New Trial. Before Jacob Watson, Esq., Judge pro hao vice. Pulaski Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Debtor and Creditor. Partnership. Verdict. Practice m Superior Court. New Trial. Before Jacob Watson, Esq., Judge pro hao vice. Pulaski Superior Court. May Term, 1885. • E. Crockett & Sons brought complaint against Roebuck & Scarborough on an open account containing items dated from November, 1881, to April, 1882. On the trial, the evidence for the plaintiffs was, in brief, as follows: The account attached to the declaration against the defendants was just, due and unpaid, except $25.00 for a roll of belting, and Roebuck had so admitted it to be. Plaintiffs closed. The evidence on behalf of…
1Opinion of the Court
Jackson, Chief Justice.
E. Crockett & Sons sued Roebuck & Scarborough on account for machinery furnished them for mill purposes in which they were interested. A verdict was rendered against Roebuck alone, and thereupon Crockett & Sons moved for a new trial against Scarborough. It was denied, and they excepted.
1. The facts show that a new trial should be granted. It is immaterial that Roebuck ordered the machinery. It was not delivered until Scarborough importuned E. Crockett & Sons to hurry it up, as they (“ we ”) were suffering for it, and must get it elsewhere unless the delivery was soon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thomas v. DockinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885