Since the judgment of the trial court hearing the case without the intervention of a jury was supported by some evidence, the judgment overruling the motion for new trial on the usual general grounds only was not error.
Herbert U. Johnson sued the defendant on an account showing an indebtedness for the purchase price of 504 pullets $1.50 each--$756. The defendant in his answer denied the indebtedness and alleged that he had never purchased any pullets from the plaintiff. On the trial of the case before the court without the intervention of a jury a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and thereafter the defendant's motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only was overruled. The defendant now excepts to this judgment adverse to him.
The defendant admitted in his testimony that he had purchased the quantity of pullets at the price stated on the day of the alleged transaction, but denied that he purchased them from the plaintiff. It was the defendant's contention that he purchased them from T. & R. Farm Service which was owned by L. C. Roberts. The plaintiff and L. C. Roberts both testified that the purchase was made by the defendant from the plaintiff. While the evidence did not demand a finding for the plaintiff, and a finding for the defendant would have been authorized, a finding for the defendant and against the plaintiff was not demanded. "The conflicts in the evidence were questions for the trior of fact and not one of law for this court. 'As the case was submitted to the judge for determination of all issues without a jury, wherever it is necessary to consider any conflict in the evidence in the record, that view of it must be taken which is most favorable to the prevailing parties.' City of McRae v. Folsom, 191 Ga. 272
, 276 (11 SE2d 900
)." Hopkins v. Sicro, 107 Ga. App. 691
, 693 (131 SE2d 243
). The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only.
Judgment affirmed. Hall and Russell, JJ., concur.