Wheeler v. Porter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wheeler v. Porter

92 S.E. 952, 20 Ga. App. 234, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 828

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1917

Docket8343, 8344

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 952 (Wheeler v. Porter) 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

Wheeler v. Porter, 92 S.E. 952, 20 Ga. App. 234, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J?. J.

1. The only assignment of error argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is that the court erred in instructing the jury, in substance, that if they came to the conclusion that there was no certain and definite contract or agreement between the parties, they would be authorized to find for the plaintiff on a quantum meruit, provided he rendered valuable services to the defendant. In our opinion this charge was unauthorized by the pleadings and the evidence, but, the jury having returned a verdict for the full amount sued for under the contract, it is not shown that this charge was harmful' to the defendant; and, therefore, it does not require a reversal of the judgment below.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

3. The ruling upon the main bill of exceptions renders a consideration of the cross-bill unnecessary.

Judgment on the main hill of exceptions affirmed. Oross-hill dismissed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, J?. J.

1. The only assignment of error argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is that the court erred in instructing the jury, in substance, that if they came to the conclusion that there was no certain and definite contract or agreement between the parties, they would be authorized to find for the plaintiff on a quantum meruit, provided he rendered valuable services to the defendant. In our opinion this charge was unauthorized by the pleadings and the evidence, but, the jury having returned a verdict for the full amount sued for under the contract, it is not shown that this charge was harmful' to the defendant; and, therefore, it does not require a reversal of the judgment below.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

3. The ruling upon the main bill of exceptions renders a consideration of the cross-bill unnecessary.

Judgment on the main hill of exceptions affirmed. Oross-hill dismissed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 952, 20 Ga. App. 234, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-porter-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack