Watson v. TOMPKINS CHEVROLET COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watson v. TOMPKINS CHEVROLET COMPANY

63 S.E.2d 681, 83 Ga. App. 440, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 883

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1951

Docket33428

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 63 S.E.2d 681 (Watson v. TOMPKINS CHEVROLET COMPANY) 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

Watson v. TOMPKINS CHEVROLET COMPANY, 63 S.E.2d 681, 83 Ga. App. 440, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 883 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

1. In a trover action, where the plaintiff elects to take a verdict for the damages, the value of the property is the measure of the damages. Citizens’ Bank v. Mullis, 161 Ga. 371 (1) (131 S. E. 44); Park v. Swann, 20 Ga. App. 39 (3) (92 S. E. 398).

2. In absence of a special demurrer, a petition in trover will not be dismissed for failure to allege the value of the article alleged to have been converted. Gatlin v. Matthews & Co., 16 Ga. App. 645 (2) (85 S. E. 953). The failure to allege the value of the article sought to be recovered by trover would preclude the plaintiff from the exercise of his option to elect an alternative verdict in damages if insisted upon by the defendant, but in the instant case evidence as to the value of the truck was introduced unobjected to by the defendant, and such cured any deficiency in the petition as to the value of the truck.

3. “Direct testimony as to market value is in the nature of opinion evidence.” Code, § 38-1709. In nearly all cases questions as to the value of property are jury questions. Opinion testimony as to the value of property sued for is not absolutely binding on jurors although such testimony may not be contradicted by any other evidence in the case. Johnson v. Stevens, 19 Ga. App. 192 (2) (91 S. E. 220); Westberry v. Hand, 19 Ga. App. 529 (2b) (91 S. E. 930); Bonds v. Brown, 133 Ga. 451 (2) (66 S. E. 156); McCarthy v. Lazarus, 137 Ga. 282 (2) (73 S. E. 493); McLendon v. City of LaGrange, 47 Ga. App. 690 (3) (171 S. E. 307); Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Cowart & Son, 38 Ga. App. 426 (2) (144 S. E. 213); National Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Purvis, 61 Ga. App. 674 (7 S. E. 2d, 296). Thus the court erred in not submitting to the jury the question as to the value of the truck sued for.

The court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C.J., and Worrill, J., concur. *441 Stone & Stone, for plaintiff in error. A. H. Gray, contra.

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

Felton, J.

1. In a trover action, where the plaintiff elects to take a verdict for the damages, the value of the property is the measure of the damages. Citizens’ Bank v. Mullis, 161 Ga. 371 (1) (131 S. E. 44); Park v. Swann, 20 Ga. App. 39 (3) (92 S. E. 398).

2. In absence of a special demurrer, a petition in trover will not be dismissed for failure to allege the value of the article alleged to have been converted. Gatlin v. Matthews & Co., 16 Ga. App. 645 (2) (85 S. E. 953). The failure to allege the value of the article sought to be recovered by trover would preclude the plaintiff from the exercise of his option to elect an alternative verdict in damages if insisted upon by the defendant, but in the instant case evidence as to the value of the truck was introduced unobjected to by the defendant, and such cured any deficiency in the petition as to the value of the truck.

3. “Direct testimony as to market value is in the nature of opinion evidence.” Code, § 38-1709. In nearly all cases questions as to the value of property are jury questions. Opinion testimony as to the value of property sued for is not absolutely binding on jurors although such testimony may not be contradicted by any other evidence in the case. Johnson v. Stevens, 19 Ga. App. 192 (2) (91 S. E. 220); Westberry v. Hand, 19 Ga. App. 529 (2b) (91 S. E. 930); Bonds v. Brown, 133 Ga. 451 (2) (66 S. E. 156); McCarthy v. Lazarus, 137 Ga. 282 (2) (73 S. E. 493); McLendon v. City of LaGrange, 47 Ga. App. 690 (3) (171 S. E. 307); Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Cowart & Son, 38 Ga. App. 426 (2) (144 S. E. 213); National Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Purvis, 61 Ga. App. 674 (7 S. E. 2d, 296). Thus the court erred in not submitting to the jury the question as to the value of the truck sued for.

The court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C.J., and Worrill, J., concur. *441 Stone & Stone, for plaintiff in error. A. H. Gray, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E.2d 681, 83 Ga. App. 440, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-tompkins-chevrolet-company-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack