Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Stone
| Decision Date | 31 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | 2,762. |
| Citation | 70 S.E. 29,8 Ga.App. 661 |
| Parties | BLACKSHEAR MFG. CO. v. STONE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Although the evidence strongly preponderates against the verdict, yet since there is some evidence to support it, this court has no jurisdiction to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
Causes of action ex delicto cannot, except in some special instances, be set off against a suit proceeding ex contractu. While damages resulting from the plaintiff's breach of a contract sued on may be set off by plea of recoupment, still this right of set-off is not broad enough to include damages alleged to have arisen from the plaintiff's wrongful act in connection with a transaction legally distinct from the contract sued on, even though closely connected with it in point of time.
Where a promissory note is payable on a fixed day, and not "on or about" a fixed date, and the debtor makes payments before the maturity of the note, he is not entitled, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to interest on the payments from the time they are made up to the date the note is due.
Error from City Court of Baxley; V. E. Padgett, Judge.
Action by the Blackshear Manufacturing Company against W. L. Stone. From a judgment granting inadequate relief, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Parker & Highsmith, for plaintiff in error.
W. W Bennett and Alvin V. Sellers, for defendant in error.
POWELL J. (after stating the facts as above).
To begin with, the verdict is shockingly contrary to the weight of the evidence. The transaction alleged by the defendant is in light of all the circumstances, so unusual and so extraordinary, and his claim that all the old guano notes were worth dollar for dollar is so out of consistency with all the circumstances of the case, as to make us wonder how the jury adopted any such theory of the evidence. If the defendant's claim were true, that the plaintiff, at the time of taking the note and mortgage, was to surrender to him all the title and interest in the notes of which he had held possession, it is hard to understand why it should be necessary for them to be turned back to the plaintiff's agent in order that they might be checked up. Under those circumstances, no checking up would have been necessary. The defendant had the notes, and was merely to retain them irrespective of how many or how few there were. Unusual as this may seem, it is still stranger that, after the plaintiff's agent took the notes away and delivered them over to attorneys for collection, the defendant should never have made any demand whatever upon the plaintiff or upon the attorneys for the notes until after suit was brought, and that, notwithstanding several letters passed in which he was urged to assist the attorneys in the collection of the notes, with a view of having the sum so collected applied to his indebtedness, nowhere by any reply did ...
To continue reading
Request your trial