Case ID: ga_60/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bleckley, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maddox vs. Stephenson.
    1. The controversy being between partners in the business of farming, one of whom had the sole management, gathered the crop, sold it, and received the proceeds, and a material question being what amount of cotton was produced and should have been gathered and sold, evidence was admissible to show that the stalks of the partnership year .indicated as good or better crop than was produced on a part of the same land in the year following, and that the yield in the latter year was so much.
    2. Accounts between partners are to be adjusted on principles of equity; and where the evidence is conflicting, and the jury have rendered a verdict substantially correct on the hypothesis that the plaintiff’s evidence was trustworthy and the defendant’s not, and the presiding judge has refused a new trial, the supreme court will not interfere.
    8. Newly discovered evidence, withorrt the usual affidavits, should be disregarded.
    Partnership. Evidence. New trial. Newly discovered evidence. Before Judge Hall. Spalding Superior Court. August Term, 1877.
    Stephenson brought complaint against Maddox on an account for $557.51, balance due him from proceeds of crops raised during the year 1875 by plaintiff and defendant as partners, and sold by the latter. The defendant pleaded the general issue and set-off.
    In the course of the trial, plaintiff proved that, from the appearance of the cotton stalks of the year 1875, the crop on the land was equally as good as that raised the succeeding year, if not better; also showing what was raised during the year 1876. To this evidence defendant objected, hut it wa,s nevertheless admitted.
    The jury found for the plaintiff $100.00, with interest and costs. The defendant moved for a new trial because of the admission of the above stated testimony, because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and because of certain newly discovered evidence.
    The last ground was supported by no affidavits. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
    
      Speer & Stewart, for plaintiff in error.
    Boynton & Dismuke ; E. W. Hammond, for defendant.
   Bleckley, Judge.

Evidence that tbe stalks on the land in the year during which the partnership planted were such as to indicate as good or better crop than was produced on a part of the same land in the succeeding year, was admissible, there being evidence to show what the actual yield was in the latter year.

Accounts between partners are to be adjusted upon the principles 'of equity. The evidence was conflicting, and the jury rendered a verdict substantially correct, if the plaintiff’s evidence was trustworthy, and the defendant’s not. The presiding judge refused a new trial. ¥e will not interfere.

Newly discovered evidence is nothing without the usual affidavits.

Judgment affirmed.