Ragsdale v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ragsdale v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.

147 S.E. 793, 39 Ga. App. 609, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 461

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1929

Docket19171

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E. 793 (Ragsdale v. American Agricultural Chemical 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

Ragsdale v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 147 S.E. 793, 39 Ga. App. 609, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 461 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

In a suit upon a promissory note, to which the defendant maker pleaded damage because the plaintiff payee refused to return to the defendant according to contract certain collateral notes for collection, the proceeds to be applied to the note sued on, the defendant failed to furnish any data by which the jury could determine the amount of the damage, where he testified that he did not know the number or amount of such collateral notes, and there was no other evidence upon the subject. The court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Miller v. Timmerman, 35 Ga. App. 83 (132 S. E. 138) ; Joyner v. Reynolds Lumber Co., 36 Ga. App. 694 (2) (137 S. E. 342).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhms, P. J., and Stephens', J., ooneur.

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

Bell, J.

In a suit upon a promissory note, to which the defendant maker pleaded damage because the plaintiff payee refused to return to the defendant according to contract certain collateral notes for collection, the proceeds to be applied to the note sued on, the defendant failed to furnish any data by which the jury could determine the amount of the damage, where he testified that he did not know the number or amount of such collateral notes, and there was no other evidence upon the subject. The court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Miller v. Timmerman, 35 Ga. App. 83 (132 S. E. 138) ; Joyner v. Reynolds Lumber Co., 36 Ga. App. 694 (2) (137 S. E. 342).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhms, P. J., and Stephens', J., ooneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 793, 39 Ga. App. 609, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragsdale-v-american-agricultural-chemical-co-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack