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 Link Opinion Date: 09-06-2007 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED. ON REHEARING: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. THE JUDGMENT OF THE FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Open account - Prima facie case Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., EASLEY, CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): LAMAR, J. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, P.J. Dissent Joined By : GRAVES AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial 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 Disposition: Jury returned verdict in favor of Appellee, & trial court denied Appellant's Motion for JNOV & for a new trial |
|
| Note: | On Motion for Rehearing - Original Opinion is Withdrawn & this opinion substituted therefor | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | NATCHEZ ELECTRIC AND SUPPLY CO., INC. |
CLIFFORD C. WHITNEY, III |
||
| Appellee: | WAYNE JOHNSON d/b/a JOHNSON ELECTRIC | SCOTT J. 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 - Prima facie case |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. Wayne Johnson operated an electrical contracting business in Hattiesburg as Johnson Electric. Natchez Electric sold electrical materials to Johnson under an open-account agreement. The relationship soured when Johnson got behind on his payments to Natchez Electric, which ultimately sued him for more than $40,000 in debt under the open account statute, section 11-53-81. The jury found in favor of Johnson, but the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered, ordering that a judgment in the amount of $39,098.83 be entered in favor of Natchez Electric. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Prima facie is evidence such as will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence a case which has proceeded upon sufficient proof to that stage where it will support a finding if evidence to the contrary is disregarded. Once a prima facie case is made on an open account, the burden of proof shifts to the account debtor to prove that the amount claimed is incorrect. The branch manager for Natchez Electric testified as to how Natchez Electric operated its daily business. He provided specific detail concerning the three methods of delivery and billing to the Johnson Electric account that occurred over the period from April 1994 to May 1996, when Natchez Electric did business with Johnson. The trial testimony and exhibits contain evidence of all three types of delivery. The manager testified that the outstanding balance on the invoices entered as an exhibit, less the $19,000 adjustment for overbilling and returned merchandise found on those invoices, is an accurate calculation of the amount Johnson Electric owed to Natchez Electric: $41,794.45. This testimony constituted a prima facie case for the open-account debt. The testimony described Natchez Electric’s standard practice of conducting business with Johnson and supported the accuracy of the invoices. The burden then shifted to Johnson. Johnson’s defense at trial only vaguely challenged the fact that Johnson Electric owed Natchez Electric money. He argued that he did not know whether he received goods where the accompanying delivery ticket was not signed by himself or his employees. However, within the record, Johnson admitted to the legitimacy of more than $1,600 in charges against Johnson Electric, based on signed delivery tickets. On the record before the court, acceptance of the terms of the contract was manifested by Johnson’s and his employees’ receipt of the electrical parts upon delivery at the Natchez Electric store, or delivery to Johnson Electric directly from a manufacturer or from Natchez Electric. Once the electrical goods were taken by Johnson and his employees, Johnson Electric became bound to the contract. When Johnson began paying on the account for items purchased on delivery tickets that were not signed by himself or his employees, he ratified this course of conduct in the performance of the contract. Johnson’s argument that he should not have to pay unless the delivery ticket contained the signature of one of his employees is without merit under the Mississippi Uniform Commercial Code and the course of the performance of the contract between Natchez Electric and Johnson Electric. After Johnson admitted he owed Natchez Electric at least $1,600 on legitimate, signed, delivery tickets, no reasonable and fairminded juror in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment could have found that Johnson did not owe Natchez Electric any money on the open account. This matter is remanded to the circuit court for a new trial on the amount of damages alone. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
