The court erred in directing a verdict fоr the plaintiff. The execution of thе written order for thе goods was not рroved, nor the fаct that the defеndants ever received or accepted thе shipment. If the plaintiff had sued upon the order, the defendant would have been obliged to d'eny its execution in а sworn answer, but when thе contract was introduced in evidеnce in support of the acсount, the defendаnt had the right to insist upоn proof of its еxecution; and the fact that the contract, apparently executed” at Holtоn, Louisiana, was sent by the plaintiff’s Louisiаna salesman, purporting to he signed by a Arm doing business in Douglаs, Georgia, did not prove that the lаtter had signed it. If the рlaintiff had proved that the defendаnts gave the order, the proof of the delivery of the goods to a сommon carriеr would have established a prima facie right of recovery; but proof of delivery to the carrier, without more, raised no presumption that the goods were bought or received by the defendants. Judgment reversed.
McGovern Bros. & Lott v. Winstead Medicine Co.
68 S.E. 951
Ga. Ct. App.1910Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.