Puffer Mfg. Co v. Nunn, (No. 18333.)

• Decision Date: 16 November 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 18333.)
• Parties: PUFFER MFG. CO. v. NUNN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

37 Ga.App. 358

140 S.E. 395

PUFFER MFG. CO.

v.NUNN.

(No. 18333.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

Nov. 16, 1927.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from City Court of Atlanta: Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.

Action by the Puffer Manufacturing Company against E. J. Nunn. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Geo. B. Rush, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hewlett & Dennis, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BROYLES, C. J. [1] 1. Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial (complaining of certain alleged errors in the charge of the court, but failing to set forth any excerpts from the charge) are too general and incomplete to raise any question for the consideration of this court.

2. The court did not err in failing to give, In charge to the jury, section 4137 of the Civil Code of 1910. That section relates to cases of express warranty (Cook v. Pinch, 117 Ga. 544, 44 S. E. 95), and the warranty in the instant case was an implied one.

3. In the light of the facts of the case and the entire charge of the court, the excerpt complained of in ground 6 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial was not reversible error. "It is not reversible error for the court, in stating the contentions of the parties, to state these contentions as they are presented in the pleadings, even though there be no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to support the contention." Matthews v. S. A. L. Ry., 17 Ga. App. 664 (1), 87 S. E. 1097.

4. Under all the facts of the case, this court cannot hold, as a matter of law, that the defendant failed to carry the burden of proof which he assumed at the beginning of the trial, or that the verdict in his favor was not authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

LUKE and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.