Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Ryckeley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Ryckeley

110 S.E. 324, 27 Ga. App. 744, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 395

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 1921

Docket12214

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E. 324 (Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Ryckeley) 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

Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Ryckeley, 110 S.E. 324, 27 Ga. App. 744, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 395 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

Basing their opinion on the rulings in Lunsford v. Malsby, 101 Ga. 39 (28 S. E. 496), Byrd v. Campbell Printing Press &c. Co., 90 Ga. 542 (16 S. E. 267), and other like rulings, a majority of the court rule, that, as the testimony of the defendant in error must be construed most strongly against him, “the judgment should be reversed on the general grounds [747]*747of the motion for a new trial; as the evidence demanded a finding that the defendant in error, after he had discovered the defects in the soda-fountain, executed his notes for the property and paid some of them, and such conduct constituted a waiver of all damages caused by the defects. ” While I raise no issue with my associates as to the principle of law announced in the decisions above referred ■ to, I cannot agree that under the facts of this case they are applicable and controlling, ft is my opinion, that, when considered in the light of all the facts of the ease, there is no reversible error, in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial; that the evidence supports the verdict; and that the judge of the municipal court properly refused a new trial, and the judge of the superior court did not err in ordering that “ the certiorari be dismissed and that the judgment of the municipal court be sustained. ”

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. Bloodworth, J., dissents.

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

Bloodworth, J.

Basing their opinion on the rulings in Lunsford v. Malsby, 101 Ga. 39 (28 S. E. 496), Byrd v. Campbell Printing Press &c. Co., 90 Ga. 542 (16 S. E. 267), and other like rulings, a majority of the court rule, that, as the testimony of the defendant in error must be construed most strongly against him, “the judgment should be reversed on the general grounds [747]*747of the motion for a new trial; as the evidence demanded a finding that the defendant in error, after he had discovered the defects in the soda-fountain, executed his notes for the property and paid some of them, and such conduct constituted a waiver of all damages caused by the defects. ” While I raise no issue with my associates as to the principle of law announced in the decisions above referred ■ to, I cannot agree that under the facts of this case they are applicable and controlling, ft is my opinion, that, when considered in the light of all the facts of the ease, there is no reversible error, in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial; that the evidence supports the verdict; and that the judge of the municipal court properly refused a new trial, and the judge of the superior court did not err in ordering that “ the certiorari be dismissed and that the judgment of the municipal court be sustained. ”

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. Bloodworth, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 324, 27 Ga. App. 744, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puffer-manufacturing-co-v-ryckeley-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack