Isen & Company, Inc. v. Wise

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Isen & Company, Inc. v. Wise

94 S.E.2d 98, 94 Ga. App. 220, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 511

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 5, 1956

Docket36217

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 S.E.2d 98 (Isen & Company, Inc. v. Wise) 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

Isen & Company, Inc. v. Wise, 94 S.E.2d 98, 94 Ga. App. 220, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Qtjillian, J.

The general grounds of the motion insist that the evidence did not support the verdict because there was no competent evidence as to the market value of the plaintiff’s piano before and after damage. The plaintiff testified the piano had a reasonable market value of $1,000 prior to damage, and in her opinion she could not get over six or seven hundred dollars for it afterwards. This was competent evidence as to market value, and the general grounds are without merit. National &c. Ins. Co. v. Darby, 48 Ga. App. 394 (3) (172 S. E. 74); Cohn v. Rigsby, 60 Ga. App. 728, 729 (5 S. E. 2d 93); Warren v. State, 76 Ga. App. 243, 245 (45 S. E. 2d 726).

2. Special ground 1 of the motion for new trial presents the contention that the trial judge erred in permitting a certain letter in evidence. The ground does not reveal the contents of the letter, and consequently this court is unable to pass upon its *222 admissibility. Bullock & Co. v. Cordele Sash &c. Co., 114 Ga. 627 (3) (40 S. E. 734); Cordele Sash &c. Co. v. Wilson Lumber Co., 129 Ga. 290 (1) (58 S. E. 860); Sasser v. Pierce, 9 Ga. App. 27 (70 S. E. 197); Perry v. Independent Daughters of Bethel, 11 Ga. App. 498 (75 S. E. 819).

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Qtjillian, J.

The general grounds of the motion insist that the evidence did not support the verdict because there was no competent evidence as to the market value of the plaintiff’s piano before and after damage. The plaintiff testified the piano had a reasonable market value of $1,000 prior to damage, and in her opinion she could not get over six or seven hundred dollars for it afterwards. This was competent evidence as to market value, and the general grounds are without merit. National &c. Ins. Co. v. Darby, 48 Ga. App. 394 (3) (172 S. E. 74); Cohn v. Rigsby, 60 Ga. App. 728, 729 (5 S. E. 2d 93); Warren v. State, 76 Ga. App. 243, 245 (45 S. E. 2d 726).

2. Special ground 1 of the motion for new trial presents the contention that the trial judge erred in permitting a certain letter in evidence. The ground does not reveal the contents of the letter, and consequently this court is unable to pass upon its *222 admissibility. Bullock & Co. v. Cordele Sash &c. Co., 114 Ga. 627 (3) (40 S. E. 734); Cordele Sash &c. Co. v. Wilson Lumber Co., 129 Ga. 290 (1) (58 S. E. 860); Sasser v. Pierce, 9 Ga. App. 27 (70 S. E. 197); Perry v. Independent Daughters of Bethel, 11 Ga. App. 498 (75 S. E. 819).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E.2d 98, 94 Ga. App. 220, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isen-company-inc-v-wise-gactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack