Case ID: ga-app_26/html/0118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Stephens, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11262.
    Glynn Ice Company v. Hinson.
    Decided January 20, 1921.
    Action on contract, from city court .of Brunswick — Judge Krauss. .December 24, 1919....
    J. A. Hinson sued the Glynn Ice Company for breach of contract, alleging.: that the plaintiff, while engaged in the meat business in the City of Brunswick, Georgia, entered into a contract with the defendant company to furnish on demand all the ice required for the purpose of preserving his fresh meats, and, on a certain day during the life of. the contract, received a shipment .of fresh meat and called upon the defendant for ice, and the defendant failed to deliver the ice according to contract; to his damage in. a stated sum,, for which he.sued. A verdict was rendered for the defendant. The trial judge granted a new trial to the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted, contending that the evidence demanded the verdict rendered. On the trial the plaintiff testified . to the material facts alleged in his petition. It was testified that on the day referred to above he had on hand. 4,400 pounds of meat, 3,000 pounds in the refrigerator, and the rest in the house; that the capacity of the refrigerator was 3,000 pounds of meat, and that about 900 pounds of meat was condemned by the inspector; that if the temperature in the refrigerator is allowed to get too high, meat will spoil quicker in it than out of it; that the meat not in the refrigerator was fresh meat, bought locally, and that such meat is not put into the refrigerator until it is fully cooled and dried out; and that if the ice had been furnished in accordance with the contract, no meat would have been lost.
   Stephens, J.

This being file first grant of a new 'trial, and it not appearing tliat tlie verdict rendered was demanded under the law and the ■ evidence, nor that the trial judge abused his discretion, the judgment granting the new trial will not be 'disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Mill, J., concur.

F. M. Scarlett, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Frank H. Harris, contra.