Court Opinion

ID: 9830918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:37:46.805608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:39.382995
License: Public Domain

TALIAFERRO, J.
The appellant’s statement of the case is adopted. “Appellants, defendants below, were sued by the plaintiff on November 9, 1911, on a promissory note for $1,700, as is shown by the petition. Defendants answered by general denial and special answer alleging an extension. On January 11, 1912, the case was heard before the court, who gave judgment for the plaintiff against defendants as prayed for.”
Appellants present three assignments of error, all submitted together over one proposition. They attack the ruling of the court in permitting the introduction in evidence of certain letters written by appellee and his attorney because knowledge of such letters had not been traced to appellants. These assignments are overruled.
[1] There is a motion in this case to affirm the judgment with 10 per cent, damages, because the appeal-was for delay only. We believe the motion should be granted. There was no merit in the defense, and the assignments of error are trivial and without merit.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with 10 per cent, damages.