Court Opinion

ID: 9572773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:29.232875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:14.137719
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Bell, Judge.
The plaintiff in error in his motion for rehearing insists that the verdict of the jury for approximately two-thirds of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is unjustified, since one-half of the goods sold remained in the possession of the plaintiff seller (the defendant having refused to accept them). A study of the evidence indicates that the jury, in arriving at its verdict, gave the plaintiff judgment for the items sold and delivered plus the cost of some apparent services and repairs, and in addition allowed the cost to the plaintiff of work done in modifying the machines to fit the defendant’s particular specifications. Under these circumstances, the verdict was warranted by the evidence, and Code § 96-103 does not compel a different conclusion.

The motion for rehearing is denied.