MISSISSIPPI TANK CO., INC. v. White

Court of Appeals of Georgia

MISSISSIPPI TANK CO., INC. v. White

134 S.E.2d 66, 108 Ga. App. 609, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 719

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 4, 1963

Docket40372

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 134 S.E.2d 66 (MISSISSIPPI TANK CO., INC. v. White) 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

MISSISSIPPI TANK CO., INC. v. White, 134 S.E.2d 66, 108 Ga. App. 609, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 719 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Ebbri-iardt, Judge.

Headnote 1 requires no elaboration.

In the state of the record, jury questions on material issues were presented by the evidence and the motion for judgment n.o.v. must fail.

Inasmuch as the defendant’s evidence disclosed that one of the tanks plaintiff was notified to pick up had been used, thereby rendering the defendant liable for it even under his con *611 tentions that there had been a mutual departure from the terms of the written contract, as set out in his amended answer, to the effect that the tanks consigned to the defendant were to be paid for by him “in the event the tanks were used, sold, leased or moved” at a price to be fixed at that time, the verdict for the defendant was not authorized and a new trial must be granted on the general grounds.

The three special grounds of the motion for new trial, all complaining of the erroneous admission of evidence without stating what objection was made to the evidence when it was offered and without any reference to the place in the record where the objections can be found, present no question for decision and are not passed upon.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

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

Ebbri-iardt, Judge.

Headnote 1 requires no elaboration.

In the state of the record, jury questions on material issues were presented by the evidence and the motion for judgment n.o.v. must fail.

Inasmuch as the defendant’s evidence disclosed that one of the tanks plaintiff was notified to pick up had been used, thereby rendering the defendant liable for it even under his con *611 tentions that there had been a mutual departure from the terms of the written contract, as set out in his amended answer, to the effect that the tanks consigned to the defendant were to be paid for by him “in the event the tanks were used, sold, leased or moved” at a price to be fixed at that time, the verdict for the defendant was not authorized and a new trial must be granted on the general grounds.

The three special grounds of the motion for new trial, all complaining of the erroneous admission of evidence without stating what objection was made to the evidence when it was offered and without any reference to the place in the record where the objections can be found, present no question for decision and are not passed upon.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E.2d 66, 108 Ga. App. 609, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mississippi-tank-co-inc-v-white-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack