Case ID: ga-app_22/html/0373-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bloodwobth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

9338.
    Colquitt Lumber Company v. Hodges.
    Decided May 16, 1918.
    Complaint; from Colquitt superior court—Judge Thomas. October 13, 1917.
    Hodges brought suit on an open account against Colquitt Luinber Company, for -a balance alleged to be due on three car-loads of lumber and the cost of certain inspection. He alleged that upon complaint filed by the defendant as to one of the cars of lumber, and by agreement with defendant, an inspector of the Georgra-Elorida Saw Mill Association inspected the lumber and made á report favorable to the plaintiff, and, when the defendant refused to pay, suit was brought. The defendant admitted ordering the lumber, but denied liability, and alleged that the car of flooring in dispute “was for their purpose entirely worthless,” and denied agreeing to be bound by the inspection. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and, the defendant’s motion for a new trial being overruled, it excepted.
   Bloodwobth, J.

1. The 4th and 5th grounds of the motion for a new trial are merely amplifications of the general grounds. The 6th and 7th grounds are too general, indefinite and vague for consideration by a reviewing court.

2. When considered in connection with the evidence, and in the light, of the entire charge, the excerpts quoted in, the 8th and 9th grounds of the motion are not erroneous.

3. The court did not err in “submitting to the jury the question of inspection.”

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment ■affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

Shipp & Kline, for plaintiff in error.

J. Frank Norman, Eartsfield & Co.nger, contra.