Opinion
41088.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1965. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 24, 1965.
Action for damages. Columbia Superior Court. Before Judge Kennedy.
Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler Harper, Gould B. Hagler, for plaintiffs in error.
Randall Evans, Jr., contra.
1. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial on the general grounds.
2. The court erred in not ruling out the opinion of a witness as to the value of property before it was damaged where the witness admitted that the sole basis of his opinion was the amount of the purchase price of the property.
3. The court did not err in charging the jury that if they found the plaintiff was entitled to recover they would be authorized to add onto any amount which they allowed an amount equal to 7% of the principal from the date they found it was due until the trial.
4. It is not necessary to pass upon the assignment of error made in special ground 6 as any alleged error would not likely occur on another trial of this case.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED MARCH 24, 1965.
This is the third appearance of this case in this court. In the first appearance, Mills v. Mangum, 107 Ga. App. 614 ( 131 S.E.2d 67), this court held that the award of punitive damages was unauthorized by the evidence and, the verdict for actual damages of $937.50 plus interest not being contested by the defendants, the judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed on condition that the sum of $500, awarded as punitive damages, be written off; otherwise, the judgment denying the defendants' amended motion for a new trial was to be reversed. In the second appearance, Mangum v. Mills, 108 Ga. App. 535 ( 133 S.E.2d 429), this court held that, under the facts of the case as set out therein, there was no subsequent agreement on the part of the attorney for the plaintiff to write off the $500 and that the trial court, therefore, erred in ruling that this amount be written off the verdict, which ruling would have had the effect of terminating the case. The condition of the punitive damages being written off not having been met, the judgment of the lower court denying the defendants' amended motion for a new trial was thereby reversed under this court's ruling on the original appeal. The last trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,650 in a lump sum. The defendants' amended motion for a new trial was denied, to which judgment they except.
1. The court properly overruled the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.
2. The court erred in overruling special ground 4 of the motion for a new trial. The plaintiff testified that the market value of his automobile was slightly in excess of its purchase price and on cross examination testified that the only basis of his opinion as to what was the market value before the damage to the automobile was that he paid $3,186.76 for it. The plaintiff was entitled to show what the purchase price was but he was not entitled to give his opinion that the market value before the damage was approximately equivalent to the amount he paid for it based solely on the purchase price. His opinion as to market value could have more weight with a jury than the mere proof of purchase price. For that reason the court erred in not striking the plaintiff's testimony as to his opinion of the market value when he had admitted that the only basis of his opinion as to market value was the purchase price. This conclusion follows from the rulings of this court and the Supreme Court to the effect that the cost of property alone is insufficient proof of market value. If such proof is insufficient for a jury finding, it is insufficient as a basis of an opinion as to market value which could carry more weight than mere proof of the cost of the property. Watson v. Loughran, 112 Ga. 837, 841 (3) ( 38 S.E. 82); Coffee v. Worsham Weaver, 31 Ga. App. 62, 64 ( 119 S.E. 665); Aircraft Apts., Inc. v. Haverty Co., 71 Ga. App. 560, 562 (2) ( 31 S.E.2d 419); Code § 38-1709; Crump v. Knox, 18 Ga. App. 437 ( 89 S.E. 586); Wilson v. City of Bainbridge, 29 Ga. App. 692 ( 116 S.E. 543); Garner v. Gwinnett County, 105 Ga. App. 714, 716 ( 125 S.E.2d 563).
3. As to the complaint in ground 5, that the court charged the jury that, as to the unliquidated damages sought, the jury would be authorized to add to the amount of damages found an amount equal to 7% of the principal from the date it was found to be due, the exception to the charge is not good, and the court did not err in overruling this ground of the motion. In such a case interest is not recoverable eo nomine and was not so found in this case. Western c. R. v. Michael, 178 Ga. 1 (6) (172 Se 66); Mayor c. of Milledgeville v. Stembridge, 139 Ga. 692 (3) ( 78 S.E. 35); Western c. R. Co. v. Brown, 102 Ga. 13 (2) ( 29 S.E. 130); Snowden v. Waterman Co., 110 Ga. 99 ( 35 S.E. 309); Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Hall, 124 Ga. 322, 323 (12) ( 52 S.E. 679, 4 LRA (NS) 898, 110 ASR 170, 4 AC 128).
4. We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the error complained of in ground 6 of the amended motion for a new trial as it is apparent that the errors complained of were due to inadvertence and will not recur on another trial of this case.
The court erred in overruling the amended motion for a new trial for the reason given in Division 2.
Judgment reversed. Jordan and Russell, JJ., concur.