International Harvester Co. of America v. Adams

1. It was not cause for a new trial that the court permitted the defendant to testify to the effect that a ten-horse-power engine would operate a seventy-saw gin, and that the witness knew this from experience, as he had run a seventy-saw ■ gin with an engine that was rated at ten-horse-power; it appearing that the plaintiff introduced expert testimony that such a gin could be run by an engine of that horse-power.

*673September 24, 1912. Complaint. Before Judge Rawlings. Screven superior court. August 9, 1911. White & Lovett, for plaintiff. H. A. Boykin, for defendant.

2. The assignments of error…