Keck v. Lauchheimer

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Keck v. Lauchheimer

57 S.E. 933, 1 Ga. App. 568, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 41

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1907

Docket261

StatusPublished

This text of 57 S.E. 933 (Keck v. Lauchheimer) 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

Keck v. Lauchheimer, 57 S.E. 933, 1 Ga. App. 568, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The judgment rendered by the court below without a jury was for the most part correct. The record does not contain any question of such importance as to justify an elaboration of the facts, and we merely give this opinion in connection with the judgment, in order that the latter may be understood by the parties and by the court below. We do not think that the contract sued on authorized the recovery of the items of freight and express on samples; and these sums should have been deducted. We think the testimony of the witness, Mr. Jones, sufficient to authorize the recovery of the item of $4.50 for samples short. A calculation upon this basis shows that the judgment should have been for only $172.29 principal. The account did not bear interest until demand; the evidence in the record does not disclose any date, prior to the date the suit was filed, upon which demand was made. We therefore affirm the judgment, upon the condition that the plaintiff shall write off from his judgment all in excess of $172.29, with interest thereon at 7 per cent, from November 23, 1905; otherwise we direct that a new trial be granted. The costs of bringing the case to this court are chargeable to the defendant in error.

Affirmed, with direction.

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

Powell, J.

The judgment rendered by the court below without a jury was for the most part correct. The record does not contain any question of such importance as to justify an elaboration of the facts, and we merely give this opinion in connection with the judgment, in order that the latter may be understood by the parties and by the court below. We do not think that the contract sued on authorized the recovery of the items of freight and express on samples; and these sums should have been deducted. We think the testimony of the witness, Mr. Jones, sufficient to authorize the recovery of the item of $4.50 for samples short. A calculation upon this basis shows that the judgment should have been for only $172.29 principal. The account did not bear interest until demand; the evidence in the record does not disclose any date, prior to the date the suit was filed, upon which demand was made. We therefore affirm the judgment, upon the condition that the plaintiff shall write off from his judgment all in excess of $172.29, with interest thereon at 7 per cent, from November 23, 1905; otherwise we direct that a new trial be granted. The costs of bringing the case to this court are chargeable to the defendant in error.

Affirmed, with direction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 S.E. 933, 1 Ga. App. 568, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keck-v-lauchheimer-gactapp-1907.