Bailey v. McClendon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bailey v. McClendon

24 Ga. App. 473

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 1, 1919

Docket10577

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Ga. App. 473 (Bailey v. McClendon) 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

Bailey v. McClendon, 24 Ga. App. 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

This case is a contest as to whether or not certain materials tarnished by the plaintiff to the defendants were included in a contract Á purchase and sale, or whether they were furnished as extras. While the evidence is conflicting, it does not fail to authorize the finding for the defendant as made by the jury. Even though the evidence admitted over objection may have been, as contended, irrelevant, it was necessarily harmless, and therefore its admission would not authorize setting the verdict aside. The reference by the trial judge to the contentions as “set up” by the defendant could not, when taken in the connection in which the words were used, he construed as an expression of the court’s opinion as to what had or had not been proved.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ,, concur.

Complaint; from Haralson superior court—Judge Irwin. April 5, 1919.

J. S: Edwards, Taylor Smith, for plaintiff. M. BuMard, Griffith & Matthews, for defendants.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

This case is a contest as to whether or not certain materials tarnished by the plaintiff to the defendants were included in a contract Á purchase and sale, or whether they were furnished as extras. While the evidence is conflicting, it does not fail to authorize the finding for the defendant as made by the jury. Even though the evidence admitted over objection may have been, as contended, irrelevant, it was necessarily harmless, and therefore its admission would not authorize setting the verdict aside. The reference by the trial judge to the contentions as “set up” by the defendant could not, when taken in the connection in which the words were used, he construed as an expression of the court’s opinion as to what had or had not been proved.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ,, concur.

Complaint; from Haralson superior court—Judge Irwin. April 5, 1919.

J. S: Edwards, Taylor Smith, for plaintiff. M. BuMard, Griffith & Matthews, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Ga. App. 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-mcclendon-gactapp-1919.