
    9344.
    WEBB v. THOMPSON.
    1, 2. The rulings of the trial judge on the admission of testimony, as complained of in the motion for new trial, are not erroneous.
    3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
    Decided March 13, 1918.
    Complaint; from Milton superior court—Judge Pendleton presiding. September 22, 1917. (See 146 Ga. 461, 91 S. E. 480.)
    Thompson brought suit against Webb upon a promissory note, alleging that it was secured by a deed to certain land described in the petition. Webb filed a plea setting up that when his equity of redemption in the land was exposed to ’ sale by the trustee in bankruptcy of his estate, and a short time. before the sale took place, he made a verbal agreement with the plaintiff, by which the plaintiff agreed to extend the time of payment of - the note, in consideration of certain improvements which the defendant was to make on'the place. ■ The defendant further claimed that in pursuance of this agreement he bought the equity of redemption at the sale, and complied with his part of the contract, in making the improvements, until he was stopped by an injunction obtained by the plaintiff. Testimony was offered by the defendant to support his plea. The plaintiff denied that any such agreement to extend the time of payment was-made. The issue was determined by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
    
      J. P. Brooke, J. Z. Foster, for plaintiff in error.
    
      G. B. Walker, George F. Gober, W. I. Heyward, contra.
   Harwell, J.

In one ground of the motion for new’ trial it is alleged that the defendant was asked the question if he, in order to carry out the contract, had sold a portion of said land in order to enable him to pay for the land; to which he answered yes; and that the court excluded this- testimony. It appears from the motion that counsel for the defendant admitted that the contract with plaintiff did not contemplate that defendant should sell any of the land; and under this admission the court did not err in excluding this testimony. '

In another ground of the motion it is complained that the plaintiff was permitted by the court to explain' a certain letter which the plaintiff had written to the defendant. The court did mot err in admitting this testimony, and there was no merit in this ground of the motion.

The court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion. There was a sharp conflict between the plaintiif and defendant as to the making of the alleged verbal contract extending the time of payment, but the jury decided this issue in favor-of the plaintiff. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and approved by the trial judge; and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworthy J., concur.  