Georgia Refining Co. v. Atlanta Milling Co. , 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 295 ( 1914 )

Russell, C. J.

1. There was ample evidence upon which to base the finding of the court, and the errors complained of are not of sufficient materiality to require a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial.

2. The action being for damages for breach of contract, the finding of $8.65 as interest eo nomine, in addition to the principal sum sued for, was erroneous; and direction is given that this sum be written off the judgment. Snowden v. Waterman, 110 Ga. 100 (35 S. E. 309) ; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Brown, 102 Ga. 13 (29 S. E. 130).

. Judgment affirmed, with direction.