22 Ga. App. 467 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1918
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
It will be seen that the judge did.not in the portions, of the charge indicated, nor did he elsewhere, distinguish the two distinct causes of action as laid by the declaration, and which grew out of the alleged breach of the two similar though independent contracts.
The alleged errors in the instructions complained of in the remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial are not such as are likely to be involved in the next trial of the case, and need not be discussed.
Judgment on the main hill of exceptions reversed; on the cross-hill affirmed.