Case Name: Wade White, plaintiff in error, vs. E. D. Blasland, for use, etc., defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1871-01
Citations: 42 Ga. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wade White, plaintiff in error, vs. E. D. Blasland, for use, etc., defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 184–186

Head Matter:
Wade White, plaintiff in error, vs. E. D. Blasland, for use, etc., defendant in error.
A suit was instituted for the recovery of the amount due on two promissory notes, or written obligations, made by the defendant, one of which was for the sum of $282 10, dated 8th August, 1868, due eight months after date, the other for the sum of $425 00, of the same date, due, on demand, after one year’s time after the date thereof. When the case was called for trial, the defendant moved to continue the same, which motion was overruled by the Court. The plaintiff then offered as evidence the two notes or written obligations, and proved by plaintiff’s attorney that some time after the expiration of twelve months from the date of the last named obligation, (the exact time not stated) he made a formal demand of the defendant for the payment thereof, which he declined to do, and thereupon closed his case, and the defendant introduced no evidence. The jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff seven hundred and seventy-one dollars and forty cents principal, with interest and costs of suit.” The defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground of the refusal of the Court to continue the case, and because the verdict of the jury was contrary to law, and against the evidence, which motion the Court overruled, and the defendant excepted:
Held, That the reasonable intendment of the verdict is that the jury found for the plaintiff the principal sum due on the two notes or obligations sued on, with interest thereon from the time the same became due.
And that there was no error in the Court below in overruling the motion for a continuance of the case, on the showing made therefor, (to-wit: that defendant was absent, when it was not shown what he would testify to if present. B..)
Held, further, That the judgment of the Court below be reversed and a new trial be granted, so as to allow the verdict to he corrected, in accordance with the reasonable intendment and construction thereof; unless the plaintiff shall consent to enter up his judgment thereon for the sum of $707 10 for his principal debt, with interest thereon from the time the same became due, the interest to be calculated on the obligation payable on demand, from the 14th day of September, 1869, the date of the commencement of the suit; and upon the plaintiff consenting to do so, that the judgment of the Court below stand affirmed.
Verdict. Interest. Continuance. Before Judge Bigby. Carroll Superior Court. August Term, 1870.
Edward B. Blasland, for the use of Thomas Blasland, on the 14th of September, 1869, sued White upon his note made the 8th of August 1868, due eight months after date, for $325 00, (on which $42 90 was paid on the day it was made) and on another paper made the same day, as follows: “I, Wade White, do hereby obligate myself to Edward B. Blasland, in case he shall not deem it for his interest to come back to Villa Rica, to pay him, on demand, after one year’s time, the sum of four hundred and twenty-five dollars, also half the profits of Stamp Mill, now owned by him, from date, less half the expenses,” both payable to Edward B. Blasland. The defendant pleaded that he paid $100 00 to Edward B. on the 8th of August, 1868, which should be credited on said demands; that Edward B. owed him $100 00 for wood, etc., $168 62 for his half of said expenses, etc.
When the case was called for trial, defendant’s counsel moved to continue because of the absence of defendant, and of the interrogatories of a witness. It was not shown what the defendant would testify to, nor was any reason for his absence, satisfactory to the Court, given. As to the interrogatories, it appeared that the commission issued in January then last past, but they had not been handed to any commissioners to execute. The continuance was refused.
Plaintiff’s counsel read said note and paper in evidence, and a witness testified that “ some time after the expiration of twelve months from the date of said papers ” he demanded payment; that the defendant said he would pay soon, but claimed that he ought to be allowed a credit of $10 000.. There was no other evidence. The jury found for plaintiff $771 40 “principal, with interest” and costs. Judgment was entered for $771 40, “ principal and interest up to date,” and costs. Defendant’s counsel moved for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and because said continuance was refused. The Court refused a new trial, and that is assigned as error.
Thomas W. Latham, by William Ezzard for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Merrill, Newman & Harrison, for defendant.

Opinion:
Warner, J.
There was no error in the refusal of the Court to continue the case on the showing made therefor. The judgment of the Court below must be reversed and a new trial granted, so as to allow the verdict to be corrected in accordance with the reasonable intendment and construction thereof; unless the plaintiff shall consent to enter his judgment thereon for the sum of $707 10 for his principal debt, with interest thereon, from the time the same became due, the interest to be calculated on the obligation payable on demand, from the 14th day of September, 1869, the date of the commencement of the action.
Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed on the terms stated in this opinion.