Carroll v. Aiken

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carroll v. Aiken

37 S.E.2d 158, 73 Ga. App. 470, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 336

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1946

Docket31160.

StatusPublished

This text of 37 S.E.2d 158 (Carroll v. Aiken) 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

Carroll v. Aiken, 37 S.E.2d 158, 73 Ga. App. 470, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

Mrs. W. F. Aiken, hereinafter called the .plaintiff, sued J. E. Carroll, called the defendant, seeking to recover the penalty for overcharge and attorney’s fees, under the emergency price control act, concerning a washing machine which the defendant had sold to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had chai'ged her $175 for the machine, whereas the ceiling price under the said act was only $27.50, and that she had paid to the defendant her household effects, amounting to an agreed price of $62, and had paid the balance in cash; that, on account of the condition of the washing machine, it was not at all suited for the purpose for which she bought it, and was not worth for any purpose over the ceiling price of $27.50.

The defendant filed an answer, denying liability on two grounds: (a) that, on account of the nature of his business, he did not come under the provisions of the act; and (b) that he did not receive any cash money at all from the plaintiff, but the transaction was an exchange of property only. The ease was submitted to a judge of the civil court of Fulton County, to pass upon the law and facts without a jury. The judge found for the plaintiff in the sum of $113, in addition to $50 as a *471 reasonable attorney’s fee. A motion for a new trial was filed by the defendant on the general grounds only. This motion was overruled and the defendant excepted.

Decided February 15, 1946. W. F. Moore, for plaintiff in error. William A. Fuller, contra.

While the evidence was conflicting on some of the material issues, there is sufficient evidence to sustain the judge’s finding. That being true, this court is without authority of law to disturb it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

Mrs. W. F. Aiken, hereinafter called the .plaintiff, sued J. E. Carroll, called the defendant, seeking to recover the penalty for overcharge and attorney’s fees, under the emergency price control act, concerning a washing machine which the defendant had sold to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had chai'ged her $175 for the machine, whereas the ceiling price under the said act was only $27.50, and that she had paid to the defendant her household effects, amounting to an agreed price of $62, and had paid the balance in cash; that, on account of the condition of the washing machine, it was not at all suited for the purpose for which she bought it, and was not worth for any purpose over the ceiling price of $27.50.

The defendant filed an answer, denying liability on two grounds: (a) that, on account of the nature of his business, he did not come under the provisions of the act; and (b) that he did not receive any cash money at all from the plaintiff, but the transaction was an exchange of property only. The ease was submitted to a judge of the civil court of Fulton County, to pass upon the law and facts without a jury. The judge found for the plaintiff in the sum of $113, in addition to $50 as a *471 reasonable attorney’s fee. A motion for a new trial was filed by the defendant on the general grounds only. This motion was overruled and the defendant excepted.

Decided February 15, 1946. W. F. Moore, for plaintiff in error. William A. Fuller, contra.

While the evidence was conflicting on some of the material issues, there is sufficient evidence to sustain the judge’s finding. That being true, this court is without authority of law to disturb it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.E.2d 158, 73 Ga. App. 470, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-aiken-gactapp-1946.