Dacula Banking Co. v. Hall

Blood worth, J.

1. When all the facts of the case and the entire charge is considered, nothing in either of the two special grounds of the motion for a new trial attacking the charge requires a reversal of the judgment.

2. Under the petition in this case when supported by proper proof, the plaintiff would be authorized to recover “the sum of $100 principal; with interest at 4-%% semiannually from the month of November, 1918.” The verdict was for $100 principal and $40.75 interest from September 2, 1924. The interest found is excessive by $14.50. If the plaintiff will write off this amount from the interest stated in the verdict, the'judg-' ment will be affirmed; otherwise a new trial is ordered.

Judgment affirmed on condition.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.