Avery & Co. v. Thomason & Son

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Avery & Co. v. Thomason & Son

72 S.E. 525, 10 Ga. App. 11, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 607

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1911

Docket3242

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 525 (Avery & Co. v. Thomason & Son) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avery & Co. v. Thomason & Son, 72 S.E. 525, 10 Ga. App. 11, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

According to the allegations of the defendants5' plea, they owed the plaintiffs only $4.66, and for that sum the jury rendered their verdict — the verdict being plainly intended as. a finding upon this plea. There are a number of assignments of' error in the record, relating to rulings of the court upon the evidence and to instructions to the jury; but no material error in this respect appears. It does appear, however, that the calculation by which the amount of $4.66 was arrived at is incorrect. The plea shows this on its face. The amount really left due upon the note was $10.68, and for this sum a verdict against the defendants-was demanded. The whole question involved in the trial was. where a certain credit of $300 should have been placed, and, after placing this credit as claimed by the defendants, there was still due on the note $10.68. Ordinarily this court has no power by direction to increase the size, of a verdict; but inasmuch as, under the pleadings, a verdict of $10.68 could have been directed (since,, when the defendants5 plea is properly construed, it admits a liability of that amount), and as the verdict has properly settled the only issue in the case, we do give direction that the trial judge, modify the judgment in the lower court, so as to allow the plaintiffs a recovery of $7.36 principal $2.35 interest to judgment, and 97 cents attorney’s fees, with interest thereon from the date of the-trial. Judgment affirmed, with direction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Powell, J.

According to the allegations of the defendants5' plea, they owed the plaintiffs only $4.66, and for that sum the jury rendered their verdict — the verdict being plainly intended as. a finding upon this plea. There are a number of assignments of' error in the record, relating to rulings of the court upon the evidence and to instructions to the jury; but no material error in this respect appears. It does appear, however, that the calculation by which the amount of $4.66 was arrived at is incorrect. The plea shows this on its face. The amount really left due upon the note was $10.68, and for this sum a verdict against the defendants-was demanded. The whole question involved in the trial was. where a certain credit of $300 should have been placed, and, after placing this credit as claimed by the defendants, there was still due on the note $10.68. Ordinarily this court has no power by direction to increase the size, of a verdict; but inasmuch as, under the pleadings, a verdict of $10.68 could have been directed (since,, when the defendants5 plea is properly construed, it admits a liability of that amount), and as the verdict has properly settled the only issue in the case, we do give direction that the trial judge, modify the judgment in the lower court, so as to allow the plaintiffs a recovery of $7.36 principal $2.35 interest to judgment, and 97 cents attorney’s fees, with interest thereon from the date of the-trial. Judgment affirmed, with direction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 525, 10 Ga. App. 11, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avery-co-v-thomason-son-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack