Moreover, the trier of fact is not absolutely bound by the opinion as to value of any witness, even though uncontradicted, but may draw from experience and knowledge in fixing damages for market value. E. g., National Ben Franklin Fire Insurance Co. v. Purvis, 61 Ga. App. 674, 7 S.E.2d 296 (1940); Watson v. Tompkins Chevrolet Co., 83 Ga. App. 440(3), 63 S.E.2d 681 (1951); Imperial Investment Co., Ltd. v. Modernization Construction Company, 96 Ga. App. 385(3), 100 S.E.2d 107 (1957). Accordingly, the court received evidence as to each alleged failure, any diminution in market value by reason thereof, and costs of repair.
As authority, appellant cites case law holding that evidence of the agreed contract price between the seller and purchaser is sufficient to prove the value of the property in a trover action. E.g., Kirkland v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 119 Ga. App. 759 (2) ( 168 S.E.2d 650) (1969); Watson v. Tompkins Chevrolet Co., 83 Ga. App. 440 ( 63 S.E.2d 681) (1951). However, in the case sub judice, appellant did not have title to the property and thus could not recover the highest proved value of the property.
Jurors are not required to accept as correct opinion evidence of value even where there is no other evidence of facts and data upon which the jury might base an independent conclusion. Baker v. Richmond City Mill Works, 105 Ga. 225 (1) ( 31 S.E. 426); Jennings v. Stripling, 127 Ga. 778 (3) ( 56 S.E. 1026); Martin v. Martin, 135 Ga. 162 (1) ( 68 S.E. 1095); McCarthy v. Lazarus, 137 Ga. 282 (2) ( 73 S.E. 493); Finleyson v. International Harvester Co., 138 Ga. 247 (2) ( 75 S.E. 103); Hammock v. Kemp, 146 Ga. 681 (2) ( 92 S.E. 57); Daniell Beutell v. McRee, 31 Ga. App. 210 (1) ( 120 S.E. 448); Jefferson v. Kennedy, 41 Ga. App. 672 (3) ( 154 S.E. 378); Radcliffe v.Jones, 46 Ga. App. 33 (7) ( 166 S.E. 450); Watson v. Tompkins Chevrolet Co., 83 Ga. App. 440 (3) ( 63 S.E.2d 681); Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Clements, 92 Ga. App. 451, 455 ( 88 S.E.2d 809). "The evidence relied on to show the reasonable value of the rent of the land was mere opinion evidence, and such questions are always to be determined by the jury, and a verdict ought not to be directed where such evidence is involved." Bonds v. Brown, 133 Ga. 451, 455 ( 66 S.E. 156).
" McLendon v. City of LaGrange, 47 Ga. App. 690, 691 (3) ( 171 S.E. 307); see also Chalker v. Raley, 73 Ga. App. 415 ( 37 S.E.2d 160); Southern v. Cobb County, 78 Ga. App. 58 ( 50 S.E.2d 226); and Nottingham v. West, 69 Ga. App. 876 ( 27 S.E.2d 44). To the same effect see Watson v. Tompkins Chevrolet Co., 83 Ga. App. 440 ( 63 S.E.2d 681) in which it was held that a directed verdict was improper. In order to aid the jury in evaluating the opinion evidence as to value, the jury in this case had before it other evidence which might throw light on the question of value, such as (1) a plat of the property showing its size and dimensions, and its location at the corner of Peachtree Road and Piedmont Avenue, (2) four photographs of the property as it existed at the time of taking, illustrating to the jury the nature, extent and location of the improvements to the portion of the property not taken, (3) a lease describing the tract from which the property was taken and showing the value of the yearly rental, the term of the lease, etc., and (4) other pertinent facts concerning the property testified to by the same witness in explaining how he arrived at the valuation which he placed upon the property.
Minchew v. Nahunta Lumber Co., 5 Ga. App. 154 ( 62 S.E. 716). "Opinion testimony as to the value of property sued for is not absolutely binding on jurors although such testimony may not be contradicted by any other evidence in the case." Watson v. Tompkins Chevrolet Co., 83 Ga. App. 440 (3) ( 63 S.E.2d 681). Here, while the plaintiff did not sue to recover the value of property, it sued to recover a sum of money which could not be ascertained until the value of property was determined and deducted from the contract price. It was therefore proper to charge that the jury might find an amount less than that sued for which they determined the plaintiff would be entitled to recover, if it was entitled to recover under the evidence in the case.