Peninsular Naval Stores Co. v. State
Decision Date | 19 July 1917 |
Docket Number | 8311. |
Citation | 93 S.E. 159,20 Ga.App. 501 |
Parties | PENINSULAR NAVAL STORES CO. v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
A declaration in attachment, filed under section 1823 et seq of the Civil Code of 1910, alleges with sufficient definiteness the defendant's knowledge of the adulteration of spirits of turpentine, when it follows the language of section 1824 of the Code.
"Verdicts are to have a reasonable intendment, and are to receive a reasonable construction," and "where a verdict may by a reasonable construction be understood, and a legal judgment entered thereon, it is sufficient."
There was nothing harmful to the plaintiff in error in any of the rulings on the admission of evidence, complained of in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grounds of the motion for a new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; W. G. Charlton, Judge.
Information by the State of Georgia to forfeit a certain lot of spirits of turpentine, claimed by the Peninsular Naval Stores Company, which intervened, filed plea and answer to declaration, and gave bond. Judgment against claimant, and it brings error. Affirmed.
Hitch & Denmark and John G. Kennedy, all of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Walter C. Hartridge and Bouhan & Herzog, all of Savannah, for the State.
Under section 1823 et seq. of the Civil Code of 1910, the solicitor general of the Eastern circuit filed informations in the name of the state of Georgia for the purpose of having two lots of spirits of turpentine, one containing 10 and the other 68 barrels, forfeited, and, after the same was seized under attachment, filed a declaration on the attachment. The spirits of turpentine was claimed by the Peninsular Naval Stores Company, which intervened filed plea and answer, and gave bond. The defendant moved to strike paragraphs 1 and 2 of the declaration. This motion was overruled, and exceptions pendente lite were filed. Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict against the defendant, and the case is here for review.
There was no error in refusing to strike these paragraphs. The declaration follows the language of the act. Civil Code 1910, § 1823 et seq.; Brown v. State, 14 Ind.App. 24, 42 N.E. 244; Moeschke v. State, 14 Ind.App. 393, 42 N.E. 1029, 1030.
2. The jury returned a verdict as follows:
Thereafter defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion to set aside the verdict, the grounds of said motions being that the verdict was too uncertain and indefinite to form any legal basis for judgment; that the same was not a legal finding on the facts, and was not responsive to and did not cover the issues raised by the pleadings. The plaintiff filed a motion to reform the verdict, to which objections were made by defendant. These three motions will be treated together. If the verdict as rendered is a good and valid one, it settles the questions raised by the three motions. Under the Civil Code 1910, § 5927:
"Verdicts are to have a reasonable intendment, and are to receive a reasonable construction."
In Williams, Birnie & Co. v. Brown, Sheriff, 57 Ga. 304, the fourth headnote is as follows:
"Where a verdict may, by a reasonable construction, be understood, and a legal judgment can be entered thereon, it is sufficient."
See, also, Monk-Sloan Supply Co. v. Quitman Oil Co., 10 Ga.App. 390 (1), 73 S.E. 522.
The last paragraph of the petition in this case is as follows:
"That the plaintiff alleges the value of said spirits of turpentine to be the sum of $1,500, which amount, together with costs of said proceedings, he prays a judgment may be recovered against said Peninsular Naval Stores Company as principal and said United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as security."
Applying the rule laid down in the Williams Case just quoted, in the light of the Code section supra and the pleadings, we are convinced that the verdict can be easily understood, and a legal judgment entered thereon. The verdict clearly means what it states after being reformed, that is:
See Southern Railway Co. v. Oliver, 1 Ga.App. 734, 58 S.E. 244; Geer v. Thompson, 4 Ga.App. 756 (3), 62 S.E. 500. While the words, "that is to say, we believe that the turpentine attached was adulterated," add nothing to the verdict, their insertion does not render it invalid, and they can...
To continue reading
Request your trial