Opinion

Todd v. Jackson

  • 24 Ga. App. 519
  • 101 S.E. 192
  • 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 893
Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Filed
Nov 28, 1919
Status
Published
Author
Smith
On the bench
Smith
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 77.0%

The opinion

Smith, J.

1. The newly discovered evidence offered in support of the motion for a new trial being of such a character as probably would, if credited by the jury, produce a different result upon another investigation, the trial judge erred in overruling the motion. Although newly discovered evidence may be somewhat cumulative of testimony previously introduced, and impeaching in its character, the real ultimate criterion is the probability of a different result. Mitchell v. State, 6 Ga. App. 554 (4), 558 ( 65 S. E. 326 ); Nolan v. State, 14 Ga. App. 824 ( 82 S. E. 377 ), and cit.; Paden v. State, 17 Ga. App. 112 ( 86 S. E. 287 ).

2. The court erred in giving to the jury the following charge complained *520 of in the defendant’s motion for a new trial: “Evidence has been submitted showing you the value of cotton at the time or times that it was sold by the defendant in this case. You look to the evidence and see what [was] the value of cotton at the time it was sold, and if you find for the plaintiff he would be entitled to recover whatever you find his interest in the cotton was worth, based upon the price it was worth at the time it was sold.” If the cropper was entitled to recover at all, the measure of damages would be the market value of his share of the crop at the time of the breach of the contract or at the time of the demand made by him upon the landlord for a settlement.

Decided November 28, 1919.

Foreclosure of lien; from city court of Newnan—Judge Post. April 7, 1919.

Jackson, a cropper of Todd, foreclosed a laborer’s lien for a sum which he contended’ was due for his share of the crop made by him on the defendant’s land. The defendant filed a counter-affidavit, denying indebtedness, and on the trial of the issue the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. The instruction quoted in paragraph 2 of the foregoing decision relates to cotton which the plaintiff contended was a part of his share of the crop.

A. H. Freeman, W. G. Post, for plaintiff in error.

IT. L. Stallings, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.