Maynard v. American Railway Express Co.

115 S.E. 35, 29 Ga. App. 329, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 284
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 20, 1922
Docket13272
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 115 S.E. 35 (Maynard v. American Railway Express Co.) 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
Maynard v. American Railway Express Co., 115 S.E. 35, 29 Ga. App. 329, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 284 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. The judgment of the superior court, in sustaining a certiorari from the municipal court of Macon and in thus granting a new trial to the plaintiff in certiorari, will be affirmed where the judgment of the municipal court (sitting as court and jury) is not absolutely demanded by the evidence, without any adjudication by this court with respect to the reason assigned by the superior-court judge as the basis for his action. Nickajack Milling &c. Co. v. International Vegetable Oil Co., 26 Ga. App. 473 (106 S. E. 300); Van Giesen v. Queen Insurance Co., 132 Ga. 515 (64 S. E. 456); Ballenger v. Ballenger, 147 Ga. 351 (94 S. E. 237); Cowart v. Strickland, 149 Ga. 397 (6) (100 S. E. 447, 7 A. L. R. 1110).

2. There being involved the question of the value of the specific articles of personalty, as distinguished from the market value of a given commodity at a particular time and place, the court, sitting without a jury, was not bound by the opinion of the plaintiff, upon the question [330]*330of value, there being some data in evidence from -which the court could form its own judgment, and such judgment therefore can not be said to have been absolutely demanded by the evidence. Martin v. Martin, 135 Ga. 162 (68 S. E. 1095); Great American &c. Asso. v. Jenkins, 11 Ga. App. 784 (5) (76 S. E. 159).

Decided December 20, 1922. Grady Giilon, for plaintiff. Jones, Park & Johnston, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Related

Stephens v. Southern Discount Co.
125 S.E.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Chalker v. Raley
37 S.E.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Mason
155 S.E. 769 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Jefferson v. Kennedy
154 S.E. 378 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Dixon v. Cassels Co.
130 S.E. 75 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Folds v. Harris
129 S.E. 664 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Haas & Howell v. Godby
125 S.E. 897 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Daniell & Beutell v. McRee
120 S.E. 448 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 S.E. 35, 29 Ga. App. 329, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynard-v-american-railway-express-co-gactapp-1922.