Opinion
36217.
DECIDED JULY 5, 1956. REHEARING DENIED JULY 24, 1956.
Damages. Before Judge Parker. Fulton Civil Court. March 22, 1956.
E. H. Stanford, for plaintiff in error.
Alton T. Milam, James A. Bagwell, Ward Matthews, Jr., contra.
The trial judge did not err in denying the motion for new trial.
DECIDED JULY 5, 1956 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 24, 1956.
Mrs. N. R. Wise brought an action for damages against Isen Company, Inc., alleging that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant which provided that the defendant do certain building and repair work to her home in a satisfactory manner; that the plaintiff promised to pay $2,500 for the work; that the defendant had only a few men on the job, working only a part of the time, which delayed completion of the job; that much of the work was never completed, despite the plaintiff's repeated requests therefor; that some materials used were inferior, and besides the defendant's employees damaged a piano belonging to the plaintiff by dropping mineral spirits and other harmful chemicals on the top of said piano; that the market value of the piano before it was damaged was $1,000 but its market value after being damaged was only $700; and that the cost of placing her home in the condition it would have been in had the contract been completed in workmanlike manner, which it was not, would be $1,500.
On the trial the plaintiff testified that she had paid all but $400 on the contract price to the defendant; that she had not paid the defendant $62.50 for some wall paper he had purchased to be used in the house; that the work was done in a poor manner and the defendant had refused to finish the job; and that the market value of her piano before being damaged was $1,000 but she could not get over six or seven hundred dollars for it after damage. Albert A. Young, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that it would cost between $1,000 and $1,500 to complete the job in the proper manner.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000. The plaintiff wrote off $100 thereof, reducing the verdict to $900. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was denied, and it excepted.
The general grounds of the motion insist that the evidence did not support the verdict because there was no competent evidence as to the market value of the plaintiff's piano before and after damage. The plaintiff testified the piano had a reasonable market value of $1,000 prior to damage, and in her opinion she could not get over six or seven hundred dollars for it afterwards. This was competent evidence as to market value, and the general grounds are without merit. National c. Ins. Co. v. Darby, 48 Ga. App. 394 (3) ( 172 S.E. 74); Cohn v. Rigsby, 60 Ga. App. 728, 729 ( 5 S.E.2d 93); Warren v. State, 76 Ga. App. 243, 245 ( 45 S.E.2d 726).
2. Special ground 1 of the motion for new trial presents the contention that the trial judge erred in permitting a certain letter in evidence. The ground does not reveal the contents of the letter, and consequently this court is unable to pass upon its admissibility. Bullock Co. v. Cordele Sash c. Co., 114 Ga. 627 (3) ( 40 S.E. 734); Cordele Sash c. Co. v. Wilson Lumber Co., 129 Ga. 290 (1) ( 58 S.E. 860); Sasser v. Pierce, 9 Ga. App. 27 ( 70 S.E. 197); Perry v. Independent Daughters of Bethel, 11 Ga. App. 498 ( 75 S.E. 819).
Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.