Natchez Electric and Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2004-CT-00155-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00155-COA ; 2004-CT-00155-SCT ; 2004-CT-00155-SCT ; 2004-CT-00155-SCT ; 2004-CA-00155-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 01-18-2007 Opinion Author: Diaz, J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. The Judgment of the Forrest County Circuit Court is Reinstated and Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Open account - Section 11-53-81 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Dissent Joined By : Smith, C.J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-17-2003 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich |
|
| Note: | The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. The Judgment of the Forrest County Circuit Court is Reinstated and Affirmed. Natchez Electric and Supply Co., Inc. taxed with costs of appeal. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Natchez Electric and Supply Co., Inc |
Clifford C. Whitney, III |
||
| Appellee: | Wayne Johnson d/b/a Johnson Electric | Scott Joseph Schwartz |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Open account - Section 11-53-81 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Wayne Johnson operated an electrical contracting business as Johnson Electric. Natchez Electric is a company that sells electrical materials, and is where Johnson often purchased materials. The relationship soured when Johnson got behind on his payments to Natchez Electric. The company sued him for the debt, which it alleged to be over $40,000. The suit was instituted under the open account statute, section 11-53-81, and complied with M.R.C.P. 10(d) by attaching copies of the invoices. The jury found in favor of Johnson, but the Court of Appeals determined that Natchez Electric was entitled to multiple judgments notwithstanding the verdict. In addition, the Court of Appeals rendered the judgment that Johnson owed Natchez Electric $39,098.83. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The primary issue is whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to defeat a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There was multiple testimony that the billing system Natchez Electric used was sometimes flawed, including testimony from current employees as to this fact. The problems with overbilling eventually resulted in a credit of $19,025 being issued to Mr. Johnson. Indeed, Natchez Electric conceded the overbilling problem. In addition to the multiple problems with the computer system and overbilling which Natchez Electric admitted, there was some evidence of a human problem. While it was denied by Natchez Electric, this version of events was founded on a theory that Natchez Electric had discovered that an employee had been stealing from the company and had overbilled Mr. Johnson to cover his theft. Natchez Electric admitted at trial that some of the allegedly unpaid invoices for which the company sued Mr. Johnson were inaccurate. Even after considering this information, the Court of Appeals concluded that Johnson’s evidence of non-delivery was insufficient to create a factual dispute for the jury as to whether the materials actually were delivered to Johnson. This confuses the actual burden that was placed on Mr. Johnson, or on any person who finds themselves defending an open account suit. It has long been our law that the burden of proof is initially on the party seeking to establish the debt. In the eyes of the jury, Natchez Electric failed to do this. Because there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Mr. Johnson was not indebted to Natchez Electric, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
