Wilcox v. Sargeant

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wilcox v. Sargeant

60 S.E. 810, 4 Ga. App. 35, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 189

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1908

Docket877

StatusPublished

This text of 60 S.E. 810 (Wilcox v. Sargeant) 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

Wilcox v. Sargeant, 60 S.E. 810, 4 Ga. App. 35, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 189 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The fact that the evidence would have authorized a larger recovery in behalf of the prevailing party in a case than the amount of the verdict affords no ground of complaint to his adversary. Gilmore v. Taylor, 3 Ga. App. 93 (59 S. E. 325); Ellis v. U. S. Fert. Co., 64 Ga. 571.

2. The rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract is not violated by the admission of parol testimony to the effect that a certain payment was made upon a different purchase than that mentioned in the bond for title.

3. There was no error in refusing a new trial, where the controlling issue of fact (as to whether a payment, alleged to have been made by the plaintiff, was a penalty or a forfeiture, or a partial payment on a purchase) was fairly submitted to the jury, and where evidence was submitted showing that it was a payment on a contract of sale which the defendant had failed to carry out, as well as evidence that it was a payment on a different transaction, in which the defendant had complied with all of his obligations. - Judgment affirmed.

Appeal, from Wilcox superior court — Judge Whipple. November 9, 1907.

Submitted September 4, 1907, Decided March 16, 1908. Hal Lawson, for plaintiff in error. Max M. Land, Walter F. Hall, contra.

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

Russell, J.

1. The fact that the evidence would have authorized a larger recovery in behalf of the prevailing party in a case than the amount of the verdict affords no ground of complaint to his adversary. Gilmore v. Taylor, 3 Ga. App. 93 (59 S. E. 325); Ellis v. U. S. Fert. Co., 64 Ga. 571.

2. The rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract is not violated by the admission of parol testimony to the effect that a certain payment was made upon a different purchase than that mentioned in the bond for title.

3. There was no error in refusing a new trial, where the controlling issue of fact (as to whether a payment, alleged to have been made by the plaintiff, was a penalty or a forfeiture, or a partial payment on a purchase) was fairly submitted to the jury, and where evidence was submitted showing that it was a payment on a contract of sale which the defendant had failed to carry out, as well as evidence that it was a payment on a different transaction, in which the defendant had complied with all of his obligations. - Judgment affirmed.

Appeal, from Wilcox superior court — Judge Whipple. November 9, 1907.

Submitted September 4, 1907, Decided March 16, 1908. Hal Lawson, for plaintiff in error. Max M. Land, Walter F. Hall, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 810, 4 Ga. App. 35, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilcox-v-sargeant-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack