Court Opinion

ID: 9572793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:39.44326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:19.589278
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
dissenting. In my opinion, there is no evidence in this case which would authorize a verdict of $1,600. An examination of the evidence will show that Mr. B argano did not testify as to the value of the automobile involved in this action. His testimony as a whole can not be construed in any other way except that he only testified as 4o the value of a car similar in model to the one involved in this case in Washington, D. C., assuming it was in good condition. The testimony as to the fact that the defendants bought the automobile *640involved for a $1,000 check, plus an old car worth from $300 to $400, has no probative value on the question of the value of the automobile for the reason that one of the defendants testified that the motor and transmission of the automobile had been “doped up”, and in effect that the defendants were defrauded in the sale and purchase of the automobile, and they stopped payment on the check for $1,000. The evidence showed that the automobile in the condition in which it was found to be by the defendants was not worth more than $300 to $700. Other witnesses testified that the value of the automobile at the time of its conversion by the defendants, which was at the time they bought it in September, 1958, was from $300 to $850. Mr. Bargano testified in one place that he saw1 the automobile in question in April, 1958, but later in his testimony he said he saw it after the purchase by the defendants on April 16, 1959. The jury found the value of $1,600. While a jury is not bound to accept the exact opinion evidence as to value, I know of no rule of law or decison which will authorize a jury to approximately double the value estimated by the opinions of the witnesses. It is true that pictures of the automobile were in evidence. They are not in the record. It would be a very unusual set of photographs if they gave the jury information about the transmission and motor. I can think of nothing else in the case which could have led the jury to a $1,600 value unless it was Mr. Bargano’s testimony, which is completely without probative value, and the fact that the defendants attempted to buy the vehicle for $1,400 before they found out it had been “doctored” to mislead them.
The verdict in this'case is as unsupported as a verdict for $25 would have been. See Sammons v. Copeland, 85 Ga. App. 318 (69 S. E. 2d 617); Elder v. Woodruff Hardware Ac. Co., 16 Ga. App. 255 (85 S. E. 268).