
    Robert Falkner & Company, plaintiffs in error, vs. Loring Lane, defendant in error.
    1. Where goods are bought at definite prices in one market for sale in another, and the buyer has full and fair opportunity to examine for himself, the seller (if he practice no fraud) will not be held to warrant his prices to be’as low as any in the former market, and low enough to produce a profit in the latter, though he may say they are so, and though the buyer may believe it and act upon that belief.
    2. A verdict right beyond all doubt should stand, though some errors be found in the charge.
    Sales. Warranty. New Trial. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. April Term, 1876.
    Lane brought complaint against Falkner & Company, on an itemized account, aggregating $445.00. The defendant pleaded as follows:
    1. The general issue.
    2. That the contract of purchase was made in New York in the year 1874; that the plaintiff agreed to sell the goods at the then wholesale prices in New York and in the leading markets of America; that the plaintiff, in violation of this contract, charged the defendant, in excess of such prices, the sum of $303.IT.
    3. That it was a part of said contract that the plaintiff was to sell the goods at such prices as to enable the defendants to successfully compete with other merchants in the city of Macon, engaged in the same business-. That the charges made were in excess of such as would allow the successful competition with the other Macon merchants, the sum of $303.11.
    The plaintiff testified that the goods were sold at the customary New Yorlc prices. He denied the contract set up in defendant’s pleas.
    The defendant, Ealkner, testified substantially to the facts set forth in the pleas.
    Other evidence was introduced tending to show that the charges were from twenty to forty per cent, above what could be paid for goods and enable the purchaser to make a reasonable profit in the Macon market.
    The jury found for the plaintiff the full amount sued for. The defendants moved for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and because the court erred in its charge.
    In view of the decision it is unnecessary to give the charge.
    The motion was overruled, and the defendants ■ excepted.
    Washington Dessau, for plaintiffs in error.
    Gr. W. G-ustin ; R. W. Jemison ; O. E. Long, for'defendant.
   Bleckley, Judge.

A merchant of Macon, being in New York and there purchasing goods for re-sale in his trade at Macon, buying the same by sample at precise and definite prices, no fraud of any kind being practiced by the seller, the seller saying, however, that he would sell the goods as cheap as they could be sold in New York, and cheap enough to enable the buyer to compete successfully with other dealers in Macon and make a profit, the transaction is not one in which the seller warranted his prices or left them to be modified by subsequent discoveries or events. If the goods when received and accepted by the buyer did not vary from the samples, they are to be paid for at the stipulated prices. The buyer had full and fair opportunity to examine both markets for himself, and to satisfy his own mind as to prices and his prospects for profit. It was his own folly if he omitted to do so. 20 Ga. 242.

Where the verdict is right beyond all doubt, the charge of the court need not be corrected — certainly not as to very slight errors.

Judgment affirmed.  