Hay v. Carter

86 S.E.2d 532, 91 Ga. App. 540, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 801
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 15, 1955
Docket35451
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 86 S.E.2d 532 (Hay v. Carter) 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
Hay v. Carter, 86 S.E.2d 532, 91 Ga. App. 540, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 801 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955).

Opinion

Quillian, J.

The measure of the plaintiff’s damages was the difference between the market value of the automobile immediately before and its market value immediately after the collision. This is of course established by proof of those values. The only evidence introduced upon the trial of the case concerning these values was the testimony of the plaintiff.

This testimony was merely opinion evidence as to the value of the automobile after the collision, and was not binding upon the jury in fixing the values and determining the amount the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Code § 38-1709. It was held in Birmingham Paper Company v. Holder, 24 Ga. App. 630, 632 (101 S. E. 692), that the question as to market value of an article is peculiarly for the jury and jurors are not required to accept as correct the uncontradicted opinion or estimate of a witness as to the value of property, and may by their verdict place a lower value upon the property.

For the reasons assigned, it was error for the judge to direct the verdict.

The plaintiff states .in his brief that he was not given notice prior to the certification of the bill of exceptions as required by Code (Ann. Supp.) § 6-908.1. In Georgia Southern & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Williamson, 84 Ga. App. 167 (65 S. E. 2d 444), this court *542 held that the failure of the judge to have the defendant in error notified of his intention to certify the bill of exceptions is not a reversible error.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

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

Related

Piedmont Builders, Inc. v. Fullerton
276 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Department of Transportation v. Driggers
257 S.E.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Kaplan v. Clark Co.
256 S.E.2d 55 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Rutledge v. Glass
188 S.E.2d 261 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Corvair Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Bull
186 S.E.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Darrah v. Womack
182 S.E.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Fuller v. Fuller
136 S.E.2d 461 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Childs v. LOGAN MOTOR COMPANY
120 S.E.2d 138 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
State Highway Department v. Andrus
95 S.E.2d 781 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 S.E.2d 532, 91 Ga. App. 540, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hay-v-carter-gactapp-1955.