Case Name: Barksdale v. Jones
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1914-08-22
Citations: 15 Ga. App. 16
Docket Number: 5150
Parties: Barksdale v. Jones.
Judges: Roam, J., absent.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 16–16

Head Matter:
5150.
Barksdale v. Jones.
Decided August 22, 1914.
Certiorari; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. July 25, 1913.
Summons of garnishment, based on a judgment for $15 against David Grant, was served on Mrs. Barksdale. Her answer denying indebtedness was traversed, and, on the trial of the case in a justice’s court, the defendant in fi. fa. testified: “Mrs. Barksdale owes me $50.45. What she owes this to me for is for some building work that I had done for her. She got me to fix up some houses. T ceiled part of a house, for which she agreed to pay me $10, and I also did some other odd jobs about the house, for which she was to pay me $4.45. She has paid me $119, and this leaves her owing me $50.45.” There was no further testimony. The jury rendered a verdict finding that the garnishee was indebted to the defendant $50.45. She sued out certiorari, the judge of the superior court overruled the certiorari, and she excepted to that judgment.
Citations by counsel:
Herrington v. Shumate Razor Co., 6 Ga. App. 861, 864; Eastlick v. Sou. Ry. Co., 116 Ga. 48; Suttles v. Sewell, 117 Ga. 214; Bradley v. State, 121 Ga. 201 (2); Hanjaras v. Atlanta, 6 Ga. App. 575.
Mallary & Wimberly, for plaintiff in error. R. D. Feagin, contra.

Opinion:
Wade, J.
The burden of sustaining the traverse to the garnishee's answer, which rested on the plaintiff, was not successfully carried by deductions unauthorized by the facts stated. Where a witness testified that he did work of the aggregate value of $14.45 for another person, who paid him $119, and that this left that person owing him $50.45, without more, the status of the mutual account between the parties as established by this evidence would not authorize a verdict for any amount against the person paying the $119. If there had been evidence of a contract for work, in payment upon which the apparent overplus was applicable, the verdict might be supported.
Judgment reversed.
Roam, J., absent.