Georgia Refining Co. v. Atlanta Milling Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Refining Co. v. Atlanta Milling Co.

83 S.E. 795, 15 Ga. App. 460, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 295

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 22, 1914·No. 5708·Published

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. There was ample evidence upon which to base the finding of the court, and the errors complained of are not of sufficient materiality to require a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial.

2. The action being for damages for breach of contract, the finding of $8.65 as interest eo nomine, in addition to the principal sum sued for, was erroneous; and direction is given that this sum be written off the judgment. Snowden v. Waterman, 110 Ga. 100 (35 S. E. 309) ; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Brown, 102 Ga. 13 (29 S. E. 130).

. Judgment affirmed, with direction.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. There was ample evidence upon which to base the finding of the court, and the errors complained of are not of sufficient materiality to require a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial.

2. The action being for damages for breach of contract, the finding of $8.65 as interest eo nomine, in addition to the principal sum sued for, was erroneous; and direction is given that this sum be written off the judgment. Snowden v. Waterman, 110 Ga. 100 (35 S. E. 309) ; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Brown, 102 Ga. 13 (29 S. E. 130).

. Judgment affirmed, with direction.

Georgia Refining Co. v. Atlanta Milling Co., 83 S.E. 795, 15 Ga. App. 460, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 295 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

83 S.E. 795 (Georgia Refining Co. v. Atlanta Milling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related