M. & G. Textile Co. v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1972
• Docket Number: POINT-PEPPEREL,INC,No. 47000,47000
• Parties: M. & G. TEXTILE COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. WEST
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 878

189 S.E.2d 878

126 Ga.App. 43

M. & G. TEXTILE COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. WEST POINT-PEPPERELL, INC.

No. 47000.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division 2.

April 5, 1972.

Coy H. Temples, Dalton, for appellants.

McCamy, Minor, Phillips & Tuggle, Carlton McCamy, Dalton, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

CLARK, Judge.

'The jury are the best doctors of doubt that we know of . . .' wrote the legendary Logan Bleckley in Central R.R. Co. v. Ferguson & Melson, 63 Ga. 83, 84, 85. Another gains in Georgia jurisprudence, Arthur G. Powell, ¹ one of the three ² founding judges of this court, provided our lodestar in Bell Bros. v. Aiken, 1 Ga.App. 36(2), 57 S.E. 1001:

'2. This court is a court for the correction of rrors in law and in equity alone. It has no authority to entertain an assignment of error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, if there is any evidence at all to support the verdict. This ground in the motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, upon whom is imposed the duty of being satisfied with a verdict before he approves it.'

More recently, Hight v. Steely, 86 Ga.App. 137, 140, 70 S.E.2d 886, 888 ruled:

'This court has strongly held in a long line of decisions that, although the evidence before a trial jury might have authorized a different verdict, where there is enough evidence to support the verdict found, this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court in refusing a new trial on only general grounds. See Marcus v. State, 76 Ga.App. 581(1), 46 S.E.2d 770; Scott v. Gillis, 202 Ga. 220(2), 43 S.E.2d 95. It is the duty of the court to construe the evidence most strongly in support of a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge. Brown v. Meador & Griffin, 83 Ga. 406, 9 S.E. 681; Associated Mutuals v. Pope Lumber Co., 200 Ga. 487, 496, 37 S.E.2d 393. 'The verdict was authorized by the evidence and has the approval of the trial court. No error of law appearing, it will not be disturbed by this court.' Fowler v. State, 82 Ga.App. 197(2), 60 S.E.2d 473, 474.'

In the case sub judice suit was brought on account for goods sold and delivered with defendants alleging 'that the merchandise delivered was defective and in many instances worthless; the price on many of the shipments was higher than that agreed by the defendants; and the 5 per cent allowance for waste was not deducted.' The jury found for the plaintiff in the full amount sued for and the trial judge denied a motion for new trial based on general grounds alone. Our review of the record and transcript requires us, in the light of the cited authorities, to hold the judgment is

Affirmed.

EBERHARDT, P.J., and DEEN, J., concur.

1 After serving five years on this...