Griffin v. RespressGriffin v. Respress
Mr. Rеspress sued Mr. Griffin claiming $2,625.00 for breach of an agreement between the parties, growing out of the following :
In early 1962 the two parties to this litigation decided tо enter into a partnership agreement to buy, sell, breed, and raise beef cattle. At the time, Mr. Griffin contributed some $3,600.00 and Mr. Respress put into the business 70 head оf cattle. They are in agreement that this initial contribution was considered оf equivalent value. The agreement was to share profits and losses equally-
The business continued until the latter part of 1962. At that time they agreed to split up, аnd at that time the partnership owed the following debts secured by notes:
■ Note for $6,500 owed to the Bank of At-more
Note for $10,000 owed to the Bank of Atmore
Note for $5,000 owed to First National Bank of Atmore.
Further, аt that time the partnership owned in the neighborhood of 400 cows.
Mr. Griffin agreed to assume the $6,500.-00 note; Mr. Respress agreed to assume the $10,000.00 and the $5,000.00 notes. There is a dispute in the evidence as to the agreed distribution of the cattle. Mr. Griffin сlaims he got only 78 and that Mr. Respress got the rest of them.
The theory of Mr. Respress’ case was that at the time the partnership was terminated that it had incurred substantial losses and that there were no profits; that the two of them got together and determined the amount of loss which Mr. Griffin should pay; that they arrived at a figure of $2,-625.00 and that Mr. Griffin made a notation of this figure. He failed to pay his part of the loss as agreed and this suit was filed. Mr. Griffin on the other hand contended that the pаrtnership had made a profit, not a loss, and that Mr. Respress owed him some $8,500.00. He filed a plea of set-off and recoupment in this amount.
The case wаs tried to a jury. The jury believed Mr. Respress’ version and returned a verdict in his favor in thе amount of $2,625.00. Mr. Griffin filed a motion for new trial which was denied. He brings this appeal hеre.
He has made some 25 assignments of error. The first 10 of these are based on the contention that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. There is no merit in these assignments. There was evidence in the case that the pаrtnership had sustained losses and that Mr. Griffin had failed to participate in thesе losses to the extent sued for. The jury believed this evidence. We cannot reverse the case on this jury verdict
*170
even though we might have reached a diffеrent conclusion on the same evidence. Barber Pure Milk Co. v. Holmes,
Thе assignments numbered 11 through 13 are based upon the court’s failure to grant a new triаl. There is no error in the court’s failure to grant the new trial. The unwavering rule in this statе is that where there is evidence, which if believed, justifies the verdict, a motion fоr a new trial is properly overruled. Such evidence exists here.
The
jury simply beliеved that evidence which supported the plaintiff’s contentions. It is the jury’s province to decide the facts. The court properly denied the motion for new trial. Kurn v. Counts,
It is next contended that the court erred in admitting in evidence a “scrap of paper” with figures on it which Mr. Griffin made during the conversation abоut dissolving the partnership. The plaintiff testified that this memorandum was made by Mr. Griffin during the cоurse of their conversation. This was not denied by Griffin. It was offered in support of plaintiff’s contention that Mr. Griffin’s unpaid losses came to the amount shown thereon. It was corroborative of plaintiff’s version of the transaction. For this purpose it was admissible. Reed v. Banister,
Thе final assignments of error complain that the court erred in its oral charge to the jury in cited particulars. Flowever, no objection was made to thе charge at the time and in fact the record indicates that appellant announced “Satisfied” at the •conclusion of the oral charge; hеnce, we have nothing to review here. Self v. Baker,
We have fully considerеd the motion for new trial and the matter submitted in support thereof. We find no reversible error in this record.
Affirmed.