Court Opinion

ID: 9824967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:48:46.053883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:17.437115
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The trial court charged the jury orally in part as follows:
“So, gentlemen, it is a question for you to determine whether or not it was a bailment or whether or not it was a sale; and the only difference is, if it was a bailment, then you would fix a value on that car, from this testimony determine what it was worth, and, from the value of that car, you would deduct $97.50, or $94.50, the amount of those two payments, and the plaintiff would be entitled from the time of the destruction of the car to the date of this trial. If you find it was a contract of purchase and sale, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover $450, less the amount of $94.50, which Mr. Lowery had paid into that Equitable Credit Company.”
“The form of your verdict is, We the jury find the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and we assess his damages at’ so much, naming the amount arrived at, as I have instructed you.”
Appellant duly reserved an exception to the above-quoted excerpt..
Upon further consideration we are of the opinion that this portion of the trial court’s oral charge was, in effect, the general affirmative charge to find in favor of the plaintiff, appellee, and the giving of it was prejudicial error. Code 1923, § 9507.
The rehearing is granted, the former judgment of affirmance is hereby set aside, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.