Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Southeastern Express Co. v. Chambers

Southeastern Express Co. v. Chambers

125 S.E. 507, 33 Ga. App. 44, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 703
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 12, 1924
Docket15765
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 507 (Southeastern Express Co. v. Chambers) 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
Southeastern Express Co. v. Chambers, 125 S.E. 507, 33 Ga. App. 44, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. In a suit for damage to an automobile, where proof was submitted as to the nature and extent of the damage and the sum paid out for repairs, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not without evidence to support it, merely because the witness omitted to say that he thought the amount paid out for repairing the car was the reasonable cost thereof. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Tompkins, 138 Ga. 598 (8) (75 S.E. 664).

(a) While proof of what was paid to an automobile mechanic for repairing a car is not a criterion of the value of such services, yet the evidence is admissible as a circumstance to ascertain that value (Southern Railway Co. v. Williams, 113 Ga. 335 (1), 38 S. E. 744), and where there is no evidence tending to show that the sum paid for repairs was not a reasonable one, a verdict for the plaintiff is not, as to that feature of the case, without evidence to support it.

2. Under the general instructions of the court as to the measure of damages, if'more specific instructions upon that subject were desired by the plaintiff in error they should have been duly requested. Southern Railway Co. v. O’Bryan, 119 Ga. 148 (4) (45 S. E. 1000). Furthermore, if the court’s charge upon the measure of damages was erroneous in any respect, it was cured by the reasonableness in amount of the verdict returned. Boswell v. Barnhart, 96 Ga. 521 (3) (23 S. E. 414).

3. The contention that the court erred in not giving in charge to the jury certain provisions of the city code of Gainesville is without merit, since it does not appear that such code provisions were introduced in evidence.

4. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no cause for a reversal of the judgment below.

5. The verdict was supported by evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dixon v. Williams
340 S.E.2d 286 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Bembry v. State
273 S.E.2d 208 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Cunningham v. Hodges
258 S.E.2d 631 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Davis-Pickett Chevrolet, Inc. v. Collier
127 S.E.2d 923 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Scott v. Dudley
105 S.E.2d 752 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Limbert v. Bishop
101 S.E.2d 148 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Kendrick v. White
43 S.E.2d 285 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Gethins v. Stein
19 A.2d 490 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Skandamis
149 S.E. 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Smith, Jr. Et Ux. v. Blafkin
95 Pa. Super. 520 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Briesenick v. Dimond
35 Ga. App. 668 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 S.E. 507, 33 Ga. App. 44, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southeastern-express-co-v-chambers-gactapp-1924.