Briesenick v. Dimond

1. The evidence authorized the verdict in favor of the defendant. Briesenick v. Dimond, 33 Ga. App. 394 (2) (126 S. E. 306).

2. The court did not err in charging the jury as follows: “The defendant contends that the property was purchased by him and was sold to him by the plaintiffs as farming property for farming purposes.” This was a correct statement of one of the defendant’s contentions as made in his answer; and ordinarily it is not error to state the contentions of the *669parties as made by the pleadings. See White v. Knapp, 31 Ga. App. 344 (7 a) (120 S. E. 796); Ga. Ry. &c. Co. v. Simms,…