Beard v. Hammock

Decided November 25, 1907

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1907-11-25

<p>The evidence being conflicting on the question whether the oral contract, sued on was an original undertaking, and therefore binding, or was a promise to answer for the debt or default of another, and therefore violative of the statute of frauds, the judge of the superior court erred in rendering final judgment upon a certiorari brought to review a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.</p>

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1916

5 state decisions

Relies on Chapman v. Conwell · 1 Ga. App. 327 - Evans v. Griffin · Bluthenthal & Bickart v. Moore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1907-11-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Powell, J.

¶1(After stating the facts.)

¶2Hnder Beard’s version, Hammock’s contract was an original undertaking, not within the purview of the statute of frauds. According to Hammock’s testimony, it was an agreement to answer for the default of another, and, not being in writing, was. void. Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921); Chapman v. *120Conwell, 1 Ga. App. 212 (3), (58 S. E. 137); Bluthenthal v. Moore, 111 Ga. 297 (36 S. E. 689). The evidence being conflicting, the judge of the superior court could not properly grant final judgment. He may still grant a new trial if he sees proper; for when the evidence is conflicting,-his discretion in ordering a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment reversed.