Danville Lumber Co v. Mcarthur, (No. 17395.)
| Citation | 137 S.E. 294,36 Ga.App. 546 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 17395.) |
| Parties | DANVILLE LUMBER CO. v. McARTHUR. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from Superior Court, Twiggs County; R. Earl Camp, Judge.
Action by L. S. McArthur against the Danville Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
R. A. Harrison, H. P. Griffin, Jr., and Jas. D. Shannon, all of Jeffersonville, for plaintiff in error.
L. D. Moore and Walter De Fore, both of Macon, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
STEPHENS, J. [1] 1. This being a suit in which it was alleged that the defendant had contracted with the plaintiff to cut and saw into lumber the timber upon the plaintiff's lands, and to pay her a stipulated sum per thousand feet for the lumber as sawed, and that the defendant breached the contract by cutting more timber than the defendant reported to the plaintiff and paid for, by leaving valuable timber standing which should have been cut, by failing to cut the trees close enough to the ground to prevent waste of valuable timber left in the stumps, by cutting timber and leaving the logs in the woods to rot, by destroying the plaintiff's fences upon the lands, and by failing to saw lumber from timber on the lands for the plaintiff's own use, as required by the terms of the contract, and there being evidence, both positive and circumstantial, from which the jury could infer that the defendant had breached the contract in a number of the particulars alleged, and that the plaintiff's damage was in the amount found by the jury, the verdict was supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial upon the general grounds.
2. There being no evidence to authorize the inference that any of the persons sawing the lumber upon the plaintiff's lands, pursuant to the contract were contractors independent of the defendant, the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury with reference to independent contractors.
3. Testimony that lumber sells for a certain price at a named place is evidence as to a fact, and is not inadmissible upon the ground that it is opinion evidence, and the opportunity of the witness to form a correct opinion does not appear.
4. As this is a suit to recover for various breaches of a contract, the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the "law of torts."
5. Although there may have...
To continue reading
Request your trial