
    Guernsey v. Greenwood & Son.
    There being no evidence on which to base the charge requested; to the effect that “if the wall was not built according to contract by reason of the fact that Greenwood (the plaintiff) employed Booth (defendant’s superintendent) to use material furnished to build the wall to build an additional wall for him, and for this reason Booth failed to build the wall as specified in the contract, Guernsey (the defendant) would not be liable,” it was not error to decline so to charge. The evidence warranted the verdict.
    February 15, 1892.
    Charge of court. Contract. Before Judge Miller. Bibb superior court. April term, 1891.
   Judgment affirmed.

Greenwood & Son sued Guernsey for damages, alleging that they contracted with him to erect a house, it being specially agreed that there was to be a brick wall of certain dimensions to be put to a certain depth in the ground and run four feet above the level of a branch which flowed adjacent to the wall, which wall-constituted the main foundation and support of the building; and that Guernsey did not construct this wall according to contract nor in a workmanlike manner, in consequence of which, being insufficient to support the weight of the house, it fell down, broke and gave way, so that the house careened and fell over, etc. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, and it was agreed that the amount of it was sustained by the evidence on the subject of damages. Tbe defendant excepted to tbe denial of a new trial, bis motion being on tbe general grounds, and because tbe court erred in refusing to charge as stated in tbe head-note.

Gustin, Guerry & Hall, for plaintiff in error.

Dessau & Bartlett, contra.  