Case ID: ga-app_32/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodwortii, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

14969.
    Brooks v. Ball et al.
    
    Decided April 16, 1924.
    Complaint; from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Spooner. July 23, 1923.
    Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
    
      Harrell & Ouster, for plaintiff in error. J. O. Hale, contra.
   Bloodwortii, J.

1. The evidence failing to establish the fact that “Mr. Conger” was the agent of plaintiff, the court did not err in excluding the following evidence of Mrs. Brooks, the defendant: “I told Mr. Conger when I indorsed the note that I would not be responsible for the payment of it.”

2. The defendant having pleaded an affirmative defense and admitted a prima facie case and assumed the burden of proof, and having failed to establish her defense, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment afjvrmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.