Camp v. Mapp
| Decision Date | 28 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 36556,No. 1,36556,1 |
| Citation | 95 Ga.App. 262,97 S.E.2d 623 |
| Parties | J. C. CAMP v. A. H. MAPP |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's amended motion for new trial.
A. H. Mapp brought an action against J. C. Camp to recover the difference in the market value of his automobile before and after collision between his automobile and the defendant's. The trial court hearing the case without the intervention of a jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds which he later amended by four special grounds. The motion was denied, and the defendant excepts.
Robert T. Efurd, Ben S. Atkins, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
George H. Kasper, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The only questions presented by the argument of the defendant in support of the motion for new trial as amended are that the evidence did not support the amount of the judgment for the plaintiff, and that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's objection to a statement made by the plaintiff to the effect that he would have gotten three or four hundred dollars more for the automobile on trade-in if it had not been in the condition it was in. This statement was elicited from the plaintiff in response to a question by the defendant's counsel as to what he had received for the automobile on trade-in. The plaintiff answered the question and then added the above statement. It had been previously shown that the automobile had not been repaired but was traded in in its wrecked condition.
The contention of the defendant that this evidence, as to what the plaintiff would have received on trade-in if the automobile had not been in a wrecked condition, was irrelevant is correct, but inasmuch as it only went to rebut or explain the irrelevant evidence elicited by the movant's counsel it was harmless error for the trial court to admit it. There was only one question presented with reference to the value of the plaintiff's automobile, and that was the difference between the market value of the automobile before the collision and the market value of the automobile after the collision. In Brock v. Cato, 75 Ga.App. 79, 83, 42 S.E.2d 174, 177, this court approved the following charge as to what is market valur: 'Market value is the value at what a seller who is willing to sell but not compelled to sell to a buyer who is willing to buy but not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElroy v. Williams Bros. Motors, Inc.
...373; Bailey v. Holmes, 163 Ga. 272, 275, 136 S.E. 60; Loftis v. Allen Plumbing Co., 57 Ga.App. 847, 849, 197 S.E. 45; Camp v. Mapp, 95 Ga.App. 262, 263, 97 S.E.2d 623; Burton v. Campbell Coal Co., 95 Ga.App. 338, 340, 97 S.E.2d 924; Augusta Roofing & Metal Works, Inc. v. Clemmons, 97 Ga.App......
-
First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Atlanta v. Jones
...previous testimony elicited on cross-examination that he did not pay the deficiency because he could not afford it. See Camp v. Mapp, 95 Ga.App. 262, 97 S.E.2d 623 (1957). b. Appellant further contends the trial court erred by refusing to allow cross-examination of Jones' financial status. ......
-
King Sales Co. v. McKey, 39422
...is so tried the rules as to the admission of evidence are less strict. See Ward v. State, 26 Ga.App. 61, 105 S.E. 373; Camp v. Mapp, 95 Ga.App. 262, 97 S.E.2d 623; Burton v. Campbell Coal Co., 95 Ga.App. 338, 340, 97 S.E.2d 924; and Augusta Roofing & Metal Works, Inc. v. Clemmons, 97 Ga.App......
-
Augusta Roofing & Metal Works, Inc. v. Clemmons
...of a jury the rules as to the admission of evidence are less strict. Ward v. State, 26 Ga.App. 61, 105 S.E. 373; Camp v. Mapp, 95 Ga.App. 262, 97 S.E.2d 623; Burton v. Campbell Coal Co., 95 Ga.App. 338, 340, 97 S.E.2d 924. Therefore, assuming, but not here deciding, that the evidence was wi......