Court Opinion

ID: 9605209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:31:49.874366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:36.352774
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Judge,
concurring in judgment only.
I concur in the judgment only, but not in all that is said in the opinion.
Here the appellants did request a charge on accord and satisfaction in their voluminous written request to charge No. 7. The majority has cited an old rule that a written request to charge itself must be correct, legal, apt and even perfect, that is, precisely adjusted to some principle involved in the case. It then contends that if any portion of the request is inapt or incorrect denial of the request is proper. It is true in the case sub judice that the appellants had a written request to charge containing some six paragraphs and some of this written request was argumentative and the appellants should have divided this request into several in order for the court to fully understand and consider what this request was all about.
However, I am of the opinion that the authority for the rule cited by the majority is a carry over of old Code § 70-207, wherein the court decisions thereunder required that a written request to charge be ever perfect.
But this Code section was repealed by the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31, 38; since amended, 1966, pp. 493, 498; 1968, pp. 1072, 1078). Section 17 of that Act (shown by the publishers of the annotated Code as Code Ann. § 70-207; supra), created an entirely different statute as to written requests, and is not an amendment of Code § 70-207. The cases cited are based on old Code § 70-207, or either they misconstrue the new law as an amendment of that section.
I, therefore, am of the opinion that even though the *579written request was voluminous, some of which should not have been charged, nevertheless the law of accord and satisfaction should have been given which was contained in the voluminous request by the appellants. I agree with the majority in reversing the judgment.
Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., join in this concurrence in' the judgment only.