Lowe Co. v. Patterson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lowe Co. v. Patterson

91 S.E. 242, 19 Ga. App. 140, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 24

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1917

Docket7691

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 242 (Lowe Co. v. Patterson) 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

Lowe Co. v. Patterson, 91 S.E. 242, 19 Ga. App. 140, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 24 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, O. J.

The suit, as amended without objection, being obviously a suit to recover an .amount of money alleged to have been overpaid to the defendant for certain shingles, together with expenses incurred in connection with the disposition of- the shingles, and the undisputed evidence disclosing that the amount realized on resale was more than the total amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and the expenses, the court did not err in directing a verdict generally for the defendant. As the verdict directed was demanded, the exceptions based upon the admission of certain testimony, which could not have affected the result under the foregoing ruling, need not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, 0. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Wade, O. J.

The suit, as amended without objection, being obviously a suit to recover an .amount of money alleged to have been overpaid to the defendant for certain shingles, together with expenses incurred in connection with the disposition of- the shingles, and the undisputed evidence disclosing that the amount realized on resale was more than the total amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and the expenses, the court did not err in directing a verdict generally for the defendant. As the verdict directed was demanded, the exceptions based upon the admission of certain testimony, which could not have affected the result under the foregoing ruling, need not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, 0. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 242, 19 Ga. App. 140, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-co-v-patterson-gactapp-1917.