Case Name: Pierce v. Barton & Son
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1922-06-13
Citations: 28 Ga. App. 630
Docket Number: 13470
Parties: Pierce v. Barton & Son.
Judges: Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
13470.
Pierce v. Barton & Son.
Decided June 13, 1922.
Complaint; from city court of Hall county — ’Judge Sloan. February 2, 1922.
Paragraph 2 of the decision relates toythe following part of the charge: “ I charge you that among the issues the vital issue in this case is the question of whether or not there was or was not a continuation allowed under a further (or future) statement by the defendant in this case so as to authorize the extension of such credit to Whelchel. If you believe from the evidence that any authority was given of this kind, then it would be your duty to find in favor of the plaintiff the amount that the evidence shpws proven to have been furnished. Whatever that amount may be, you calculate that.” It is contended in the motion for a new trial that in thus calling attention to what the court considered the vital issue in the case the court expressed an opinion on the evidence. It is also contended that the issue stated was not the vital issue, that this part of the charge excluded the main defense, and that it amounted to the direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Luke, J.
1. The special assignment of error upon the ground that the court failed to charge that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff is without merit. There was no request for a more specific charge upon this subject. The charge of the court is sufficiently full upon the issues in the case.
2. The assignment of error upon an excerpt from the charge of the court, to the effect that it was an expression of opinion on the evidence, is without merit. Nor was the excerpt error for any other reason assigned.
3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the verdict has approval of the trial judge. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
E. D. Kenyon, for plaintiff in error.
Charters, Wheeler & Lilly, contra.