
    Trippe v. McLain et al.
    
    Although it may be true that machinery purchased at the price of $600.00 is, in its present condition, inefficient and worthless, yet where by undisputed testimony it appears that by the expenditure of $50.00 it could be repaired and made to perform good work, it is not worthless so as to entitle the purchaser to keep it without paying for it.
    July 13, 1891.
    Vendor and purchaser. Before Judge Attaway. City court of Cartersville. September term, 1890.
    Action on notes given for an engine and fixtures; pleas of the general issue, failure of consideration, breach of warranty, and recoupment; verdict for the defendants. For the other facts here material, see the decision.
    J. B. Conyers, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff.
    W. I. Heyward, by brief, for defendants.
   Bleckley, Chief Justice.

TJuder the evidence in the record, the trial of this case in the court below had an improper result. The machinery was purchased at the price of $600.00, and by the undisputed testimony, an expenditure of $50.00 would be sufficient to repair it and make it perform good work. It is therefore not worthless so as to entitle the purchaser to keep' it without paying for it, although in its present condition it may be inefficient, and if left in that condition always, would be worthless. Granting that there was no substantial error committed by the court in its charge to the jury, or otherwise during the progress of the trial, the verdict is not sustainable, and a new trial should be had for that reason. The court erred in not granting it.

Judgment reversed.  