Snowden v. Waterman

• Decision Date: 01 March 1900
• Citation: 35 S.E. 309,110 Ga. 99
• Parties: SNOWDEN v. WATERMAN et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

35 S.E. 309

110 Ga. 99

SNOWDEN v. WATERMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 1, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action to recover damages for the breach of a contract, the amount ascertained to be proper compensation at the time of the breach may be increased by the addition of interest, but the rule is not imperative that it shall be so done. Whether it will or not rests in the discretion of the jury. It was therefore error for the court to charge that if the jury should, under a given state of facts, find for the plaintiffs, their verdict ought to be for the damage sustained, together with interest from the time of the breach. Since, however, there have been three verdicts for the plaintiffs, direction is given that the sole question for determination at the next trial shall be the amount to which the plaintiffs are entitled.

Error from city court of Richmond county; W. F. Eve, Judge.

Action by Waterman & Co. against J. W. Snowden. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

E. B Baxter, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. H Fleming, P. H. Sullivan, and Irvin Alexander, for defendants in error.

LITTLE J.

Waterman & Co. sued Snowden to recover damages for a breach of warranty in the sale of certain live stock. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs. It was brought to this court, and the judgment reversed on certain grounds, which are fully set out in the report and decision of the case. 100 Ga. 588, 28 S.E. 121. The second trial also resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for new trial was excepted to, and brought to this court, and the judgment again reversed. The facts of the case, and the ruling reversing the judgment for the second time, will be found reported in 105 Ga. 384, 31 S.E. 110. Another trial of the case was had, and resulted for the third time in a verdict for the plaintiffs. A motion was again made for a new trial, which was overruled, and exceptions to that judgment are now presented for our consideration.

It may be stated in general terms that the action was brought to recover damages which the plaintiffs alleged that they sustained because a car load of mules which they had purchased from the defendant were at the time of the purchase infected with glanders, by reason of which the animals were worthless, and also other sums in the nature of expenses which it was alleged that the plaintiffs paid out in connection with the nursing, care, etc., of the mules. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for $1,990. The defendant made a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence and against the charge of the court, and also because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "If, after suspecting the presence of glanders or some other deadly disease among this stock, you find from the evidence that Waterman & Co. exercised such ordinary care as a prudent man would have done to have prevented the spread of the disease then they did all that the law required; and your verdict ought to be for the plaintiffs for the damage sustained by them, together with all necessary and proper expenses, and for interest, from the time the stock died." The specific error assigned to this charge is that the law contemplates that the jury may, if they see fit, in a suit for damages for a breach of contract,...