Ragsdale v. Am. Agric. Chem. Co., 147 S.E. 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929). · Go Syfert
Ragsdale v. Am. Agric. Chem. Co., 147 S.E. 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ragsdale
v.
American Agricultural Chemical Co.
19171.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Apr 11, 1929.
Published opinion
147 S.E. 793
1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 461
E. E. Williams, for plaintiff in error., Mingledorff & Gibson, contra.
Bell.
Published
Bell, J.

In a suit upon a promissory note, to which the defendant maker pleaded damage because the plaintiff payee refused to return to the defendant according to contract certain collateral notes for collection, the proceeds to be applied to the note sued on, the defendant failed to furnish any data by which the jury could determine the amount of the damage, where he testified that he did not know the number or amount of such collateral notes, and there was no other evidence upon the subject. The court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Miller v. Timmerman, 35 Ga. App. 83 (132 S. E. 138) ; Joyner v. Reynolds Lumber Co., 36 Ga. App. 694 (2) (137 S. E. 342).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhms, P. J., and Stephens', J., ooneur.