Barnhart & Kimbrough v. Sternberger
This text of 68 Ga. 341 (Barnhart & Kimbrough v. Sternberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This was an action on an account for goods sold, to which the defendants sought to recoup the breach of an agreement on the part of plaintiffs not to sell to any other [345]*345merchant in Greensboro similar shirts to those sold to them, which the plaintiffs broke, and this breach of contract at the date of sale damaged the defendants three hundred dollars.
The plaintiffs recovered their account in full, and the defendants moved for a new trial, which motion was denied them, and they excepted.
We know no law which compels a party to examine all the witnesses he subpoenas, or sues out commissions to examine, even though they all be named in one commission. .
The failure to set out in detail what the plaintiffs desired their witness to do in response to their own question, is no reason why the interrogatories should be rejected on motion of defendants; especially as the witness replied that it was then impossible to do so. So that the interrogatories should have been read to the jury.
There being no sufficient proof of the contract, the breach of which was the damage to be recouped, the measure of that damage was immaterial, there being nothing to be measured.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 Ga. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnhart-kimbrough-v-sternberger-ga-1882.