White v. McWhorter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White v. McWhorter

92 S.E. 954, 20 Ga. App. 216, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 820

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1917

Docket8130

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E. 954 (White v. McWhorter) 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

White v. McWhorter, 92 S.E. 954, 20 Ga. App. 216, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 820 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

Where in a suit in bail trover the plaintiff elected to take a money judgment, and where the clear intendment of his evidence as to the value of the property sued for necessarily related to such value at the time of the conversion, and his evidence as to its worth for hire' related to the period from the date of conversion to the trial, the former amount being the same as the value alleged in the suit, and the latter amount a sum less than therein named, and where such testimony of the plaintiff constituted the entire evidence in the ease; and where the money verdict in lieu of the property was for a sum less than the amount testified to, and the verdict for hire was in the amount sworn to, the defendant can not complain on the ground that the verdict was “contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity;” and it was therefore error for the trial judge to order 'the grant of a new trial unless the plaintiff should within ten days write off from the verdict the $15 found for hire of the property sued for. Civil Code of 1910, § 5930; Peeples v. Felton, 14 Ga. App. 5, 7 (80 S. E. 21) ; O’Neill Mfg. Co. v. Woodley, 118 Ga. 114 (44 S. E. 980). The evidence de^ manded the verdict and a new trial should have been refused.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

Where in a suit in bail trover the plaintiff elected to take a money judgment, and where the clear intendment of his evidence as to the value of the property sued for necessarily related to such value at the time of the conversion, and his evidence as to its worth for hire' related to the period from the date of conversion to the trial, the former amount being the same as the value alleged in the suit, and the latter amount a sum less than therein named, and where such testimony of the plaintiff constituted the entire evidence in the ease; and where the money verdict in lieu of the property was for a sum less than the amount testified to, and the verdict for hire was in the amount sworn to, the defendant can not complain on the ground that the verdict was “contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity;” and it was therefore error for the trial judge to order 'the grant of a new trial unless the plaintiff should within ten days write off from the verdict the $15 found for hire of the property sued for. Civil Code of 1910, § 5930; Peeples v. Felton, 14 Ga. App. 5, 7 (80 S. E. 21) ; O’Neill Mfg. Co. v. Woodley, 118 Ga. 114 (44 S. E. 980). The evidence de^ manded the verdict and a new trial should have been refused.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 954, 20 Ga. App. 216, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-mcwhorter-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack