Case ID: ga-app_30/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

14197.
    Stallworth v. Hertz.
    Decided April 10, 1923.
    Bail-trover; from Bibb superior court — Judge Malcolm D. Jones. December 18, 1922.
    The description of the property sued for, as given in the petition, was as follows: " a certain one-carat solitaire diamond ring, set in a gold Tiffany setting, and being the same ring mentioned in a letter from said defendant to plaintiff, dated August 12, 1921, of the value of $900.”
    
      Walter DeFore, James G. Estes, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Miller & Garrett, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. The refusal of the court to dismiss the petition, upon the ground that the description of the property sought to be recovered was insufficient and fatally defective for an action in bail trover, was not error. .

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new. trial shows harmful error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodicorth, J.J., concur.