25 Ga. App. 800 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1920
Lead Opinion
1. Where a suit in trover was pending, and in the same court there was pending a suit of the same plaintiff against the same defendant for damages growing out of the breach of a contract to deliver certain lint cotton and cottonseed, these two suits could by agreement be tried together, but it would be necessary for separate verdicts to be rendered unless there was an order of the court consolidating the cases.
2. In this case, there being no order consolidating the two cases, it was error to charge the jury aS complained of in the 6th, 7th and 8th grounds of the motion for a new trial.
3. The court erred (as contended in the 4th ground of the motion for a new trial) in admitting in evidence a writing introduced by the plaintiff, to which the defendant’s name was signed and which was in these words: “ For value received I hereby sell to R. H. Tripp 500 pounds of good middling lint cotton and the seed from the lint, being thirty bushels, more or less, both seed and cotton to be delivered Oct. 15th, 1917, at Vienna, Ga.” Nowhere in the evidence does it appear that E. H. Tripp, the plaintiff, had title to the automobile for which this written contract was given; and therefore the evidence was irrelevant to the issues in the case. The undisputed evidence was that another
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially. I concur in the rulings announced in paragraphs 1 and 2, but dissent from the ruling announced in paragraph 3. I concur in the judgment of reversal.