Georgia Refining Co. v. Atlanta Milling Co.

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.