Case Name: EVANS & PENNINGTON v. SCOFIELD'S SONS CO.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1904-08-12
Citations: 120 Ga. 961
Docket Number: 
Parties: EVANS & PENNINGTON v. SCOFIELD'S SONS CO.
Judges: All the Justices concur
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 961–962

Head Matter:
EVANS & PENNINGTON v. SCOFIELD'S SONS CO.
Where the plaintiff relies upon the testimony of a single witness, and the evidence upon the direct examination is of such acharacter as to authorize an inference supporting the claim of the plaintiff, but upon the cross-examination of the witness it develops that this inference can not be properly drawn, a nonsuit should be granted.
Submitted July 14,
Decided August 12, 1904.
Complaint. Before Judge Carter. City court of Baxley. October 29, 1903.
J. S. Scofield’s Sons Company ’ sued Evans & Pennington on an open account. The defendants filed a plea denying all the material averments of the petition. The only evidence introduced at the trial was the testimony of J. S. Scofield. He testified, on direct examination, that from his connection with the plaintiff, he was “ familiar with the account sued on,” and that it was correct, due, and unpaid. On cross-examination he testified : “Evans & Pennington did not give us any verbal order for these goods. I have seen neither of them in person about the matter. I have had no talk at all with either of them about the goods or the payment to be made for them.” The court overruled a motion for a nonsuit, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for., the amount sued for. The defendants excepted.
W. W. Bennett, for plaintiffs in error.

Opinion:
Cobb, J.
If the case rested upon the testimony given upon the direct examination of the sole, witness for the plaintiff, a judgment for the plaintiff would have been authorized. But upon cross-exmination it distinctly appears that the inference which would naturally be drawn from the testimony upon the direct examination, — that is, that the witness had sold for the plaintiff to the defendants the goods in question, — was unauthorized, and that the witness really knew nothing of his own knowledge about the sale of the articles. Such being the case, the statement that the account was correct, due, and unpaid counts foi; nothing. The plaintiff proved its case and then disproved it. See Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 (2).
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur