Neff v. Daniel

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Neff v. Daniel

179 S.E. 656, 51 Ga. App. 106, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1935

Docket24361

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 656 (Neff v. Daniel) 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

Neff v. Daniel, 179 S.E. 656, 51 Ga. App. 106, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

The verdict for $235.40 and interest as sued for was authorized. The petition alleging this amount as due merely “for wages,” and the attached statement of account describing the amount only as an “unpaid balance due on wages earned,” there was no variance between the allegata and probata, where, although the testimony showed that the amount included earnings both of the plaintiff and his wife, the testimony also showed that the plaintiff “made the trade for himself and wife also, . . that he received her earnings,” and that under this arrangement the previous partial payments for the wages of both had been made by check to the plaintiff alone. See Mock v. Neffler, 148 Ga. 25 (3) (95 S. E. 673); Cotter v. Gazaway, 141 Ga. 534 (81 S. E. 879). The fact that the jury heard a statement by the plaintiff that the defendant “did not sign up with the N. R. A.” was not ground for a new trial, where the court on motion of the defendant ruled out the testimony and instructed the jury not to consider it, especially where the defendant failed to move for a mistrial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens a/nd Sutton, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

The verdict for $235.40 and interest as sued for was authorized. The petition alleging this amount as due merely “for wages,” and the attached statement of account describing the amount only as an “unpaid balance due on wages earned,” there was no variance between the allegata and probata, where, although the testimony showed that the amount included earnings both of the plaintiff and his wife, the testimony also showed that the plaintiff “made the trade for himself and wife also, . . that he received her earnings,” and that under this arrangement the previous partial payments for the wages of both had been made by check to the plaintiff alone. See Mock v. Neffler, 148 Ga. 25 (3) (95 S. E. 673); Cotter v. Gazaway, 141 Ga. 534 (81 S. E. 879). The fact that the jury heard a statement by the plaintiff that the defendant “did not sign up with the N. R. A.” was not ground for a new trial, where the court on motion of the defendant ruled out the testimony and instructed the jury not to consider it, especially where the defendant failed to move for a mistrial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens a/nd Sutton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 656, 51 Ga. App. 106, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neff-v-daniel-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack