Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Ga. 568

Long v. Lewis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 15, 1856

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1856-08-15

Assumpsit, in Henry Superior Court. Triedbefore Judge Green, April Term, 1856. This was an action brought by James H. Lewis against George T. Long, for overseer’s wages, .The defendant, among other things, pleaded the Statute-of Frauds, alleging that the agreement was not to be performed within twelve months.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1876

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court.

Benning, J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3£1.] The declaration contains a general count for work and labor done by the plaintiff forthe defendant.

¶4*570'And this is the count upon which the Jury must have found their verdict.

¶5Was the case such, that the verdict found on this count’ •was good ?

¶6The plaintiff in error insists that the evidence shows a special contract between the parties, and a special contract that was within the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds.

¶7The defendant in error, not admitting the contract to have • been within the Statute of Frauds, replies that it was abandoned by the parties; and that, the contract being abandoned, the defendant was entitled to be paid for his work and labor, whatever the work and labor were worth.

¶8In this we think the defendant is right, if he is supported by the evidence. Even if the special contract was within the Statute of Frauds, it was not void. That only made it a contract on which no action could be brought. It was a contract, therefore, which even if it was within the Statute, could be rescinded by the parties to it. And if once rescinded, its influence of every sort would be gone; and therefore, its power to affect the question of the defendant’s right to recover on the count for work and labor, would be gone..

¶9Was it rescinded ? The affirmative was exceedingly slight; but we cannot say that there was none whatever. And in so small a case, we do not feel that it would be a proper exercise of discretion to grant a new trial, if theré was any evidence to support the verdict; especially, as if we granted a new trial, we should have to over-rule the decision of the Court which tried the case.

/20/ga/568 · .json · Public domain