
    5310.
    HARRIS v. FINEMAN & GOLDSMITH.
    There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial, the verdict being supported by evidence, and the only question presented by the motion being as to the sufficiency of the evidence.
    Decided January 27, 1914.
    Action on guaranty; from city court of Macon — Judge Hodges. October 4, 1913.
    
      Napier, Maynard & Plunkett, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Hardeman, Jones, Parle & Johnston, contra.
   Roan, J.

Fineman & Goldsmith brought suit against J. E. Toole and J. A. Harris for the sum of $500, upon a contract of guaranty entered into by them, in which “The said J. E. Toole and J. A. Harris hereby guarantee, indemnify, and agree to save harmless the said Fineman & Goldsmith, to the extent of $500, from any and all loss and expense which they may suffer or be put to, growing directly or indirectly out of any credit they may extend to said Armor & Collins.” The petition alleged, and the proof showed, an indebtedness due them by Armor & Collins, and the insolvency of that firm. The defendants pleaded a cancellation of the contract, and that they were not indebted in any sum. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount sued for. The defendants made a motion for new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence; the motion was overruled, and J. A. Harris, one of the defendants, assigns error upon the overruling of the motion. There is no merit in the motion for a new trial. The verdict was amply supported by the evidence, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion. Judgment affirmed.  