Case ID: ga-app_30/html/0584-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Luke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

14446.
    McClure Ten Cent Company v. Stone.
    Decided July 10, 1923.
    Complaint; from city court of Carrollton — Judge Hood. February 28, 1923.
    The last ground of the motion for a new trial, mentioned in the decision, was as follows: “ 3. Because the defense being-accord and satisfaction, an affirmative defense, the burden was upon the defendant thereon. The court did not so charge the jury, but did charge the jury that the burden was upon the plaintiff, and this charge put the burden on the plaintiff not only to make out its case, but to also disprove the defense of accordr-and satisfaction, and consequently was error and prejudicial to plaintiff.”
    
      B. D. Jackson & Son, for plaintiff.
    
      Boylcin & Boykin, for defendant.
   Luke, J.

The plaintiff sought to recover the value of goods sold under a certain contract of sale whereby the plaintiff held a lien upon the property sold, which lien was to be discharged by payments from the sales of the property when made. The defendant denied the indebtedness and pleaded accord and satisfaction. The evidence authorized the verdict in favor of the defendant, and the verdict has the approval of the trial judge.

Special grounds 1 and 2, complaining of the court’s ruling upon the admission of evidence are without merit.

Special ground 3, which complains of the court’s failure to charge the jury properly upon the law of accord and satisfaction, is without merit, for two reasons: (1) because no proper assignment of error is made therein, and (2) because the charge of the court when read in its entirety was full and fair upon the issue of accord and satisfaction. Eor no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and-Bloodworth, J., concur.