Bland v. Davison-Paxon Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Rich's, Inc.

    190 S.E.2d 493 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    The question is ordinarily one of fact, to be determined by the jury." See also Bland v. Davison-Paxon Co., 83 Ga. App. 468 ( 64 S.E.2d 350); Hume v. Smith, 101 Ga. App. 452 (1a) ( 114 S.E.2d 151); Bryan v. Rich's Inc., 122 Ga. App. 70 ( 176 S.E.2d 225). The evidence before the court did not demand a verdict for Mrs. Smith.

  2. Almon v. R. H. Macy Company, Inc.

    126 S.E.2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 4 times

    The parol evidence rule is a matter of substantive law and no amount of oral testimony contradicting the legal consequence of a written instrument can avail to destroy or weaken that legal consequence. Code ยง 38-501; Cleghorn v. Shields, 165 Ga. 362 ( 141 S.E. 55); Cooper v. Vaughn, 81 Ga. App. 330 ( 58 S.E.2d 453). Insofar as Bland v. Davison-Paxon Co., 83 Ga. App. 468, 474 ( 64 S.E.2d 350) conflicts with the above rule it will not be followed, as we are bound by superior authority. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on the general grounds which complain of the rendition of a joint judgment against the defendant Everett Almon. It is not necessary to pass on the special grounds of the amended motion for a new trial or other questions raised.

  3. Evans v. Brown

    75 S.E.2d 845 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)

    The evidence unobjected to had the effect of amending the petition to allege the values testified to, and the verdict for $1300 was authorized. Hatcher v. Seitz, 87 Ga. App. 787 ( 75 S.E.2d 273); Bland v. Davison-Paxon Co., 83 Ga. App. 468, 473 ( 64 S.E.2d 350); Napier v. Strong, 19 Ga. App. 401 ( 91 S.E. 579). The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed. Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.

  4. Hatcher v. Seitz

    75 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 3 times

    While the evidence showed that Truelove was not a passenger in the automobile when the collision occurred, the evidence introduced by the plaintiff to show agency was not objected to, and the petition will be treated as being amended to allege such agency. Bland v. Davison-Paxon Co., 83 Ga. App. 468, 473 ( 64 S.E.2d, 350). This would not be allowing the plaintiff to set up a new cause of action, the relationship alleged as between Seitz and Truelove and the relationship tended to be proved by the evidence both being forms of agency coming within the doctrine of respondeat superior. Baker v. Goddard, 205 Ga. 477, 478 (1) ( 53 S.E.2d 754); Trawick v. Chambliss, 42 Ga. App. 333, 334, (3) ( 156 S.E. 268); Read v. City Suburban Ry. Co., 115 Ga. 366 (4) ( 41 S.E. 629); Lytle v. Hancock County, 19 Ga. App. 193 ( 91 S.E. 219); Watkins v. Brown, 14 Ga. App.