Smith v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co.

80 S.E. 25, 13 Ga. App. 785, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 360

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 25, 1913

Docket5059

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 S.E. 25 (Smith v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber 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

Smith v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co., 80 S.E. 25, 13 Ga. App. 785, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The assignment of error complaining of the ruling of the court upon the admissibility of documentary evidence can not be considered, because the papers which the defendant moved to exclude were not embodied in the ground of the motion for a new trial, nor attached thereto as an exhibit. City of Rome v. Harris, 12 Ga. App. 756 (78 S. E. 475).

2. The plaintiff sued upon an account. The defendant pleaded a set-off, but did not supply the jury .with any data which would have authorized a finding in his favor for timber delivered by him of a lower grade than that provided for by the contract, and which was used by the plaintiff. Consequently it was not error for the judge, in his charge, to confine the jury to the contract value of the timber furnished by the defendant of the grade specified in the contract between the parties.-

[786]*786Decided November 25, 1913.

Complaint; from city court of Dublin — J. E. Burch, judge pro hac vice. May 19, 1913.

T. E. Hightower, for plaintiff in error.

3. Tlie evidence was in conflict, but there was sufficient evidence • in behalf of the plaintiff to support the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion for a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

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