Akers v. Kirke & Co.

18 S.E. 366, 91 Ga. 590
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 24, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 18 S.E. 366 (Akers v. Kirke & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Akers v. Kirke & Co., 18 S.E. 366, 91 Ga. 590 (Ga. 1893).

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

The head-notes, together with the official report of the facts, will render the rulings made in this case sufficiently intelligible. There can be no doubt that the verdict of the jury represents the natural equity and sound justice of the casé. The legal ground on which [598]*598the verdict rests is, that Mrs. Akers was the concealed principal of her husband, and that, although the credit was originally given to the latter by Kirke & Co., this was done in ignorance of the agency and of the true ownership of the property. There was enough legal evidence that such was the real truth of the case to uphold the verdict. That some illegal evidence was admitted does not render a new trial indispensable. To every lover of justice the verdict already found is more satisfactory than would be one of an opposite nature. It is impossible not to feel that, as Mrs. Akers, not her husband, obtained the benefit, she or her property ought to answer for it rather than Kirke & Co. should lose their money. Where all the consideration of a debt reaches a wife as an accession to her separate estate, and she retains and enjoys it, only slight evidence of the husband’s agency in contracting the debt is required to charge her. We have examined many adjudications upon somewhat similar cases, but it is needless to cite them, for while some of them would make for us, they are balanced by others of an opposite tendency. We prefer to rest the case on principle and its own facts. Both the trial court and the reviewing court are content with the verdict. This being so, we decline to order a new trial for slight errors immaterial to the result on the actual merits of the controversy.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vickery Insurance v. Chambers
449 S.E.2d 885 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Chas. S. Martin Distributing Co. v. Foster
230 S.E.2d 77 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Oglesby v. Farmers Mutual Exchange
196 S.E.2d 674 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Brogdon v. Hallman
167 S.E.2d 673 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Fowler v. State
111 Ga. App. 856 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Swanson v. Hodges
101 S.E.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Bourdo v. Preston
47 N.W.2d 439 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1951)
Williams v. Smith
31 S.E.2d 873 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Union Trust Co. of Maryland v. Rodeman
264 N.W. 508 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1936)
Gibbs v. Carolina Portland Cement Co.
50 Ga. App. 229 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Barrington v. Davis Jenkins & Sons
162 S.E. 642 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Blakely Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Reynolds Bros. Lumber Co.
160 S.E. 775 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Long v. Dye
157 S.E. 359 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Stripling v. Crisp County Lumber Co.
143 S.E. 433 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
McKenzie v. Patterson
109 S.E. 174 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Herrington & Braswell v. Garlick
108 S.E. 304 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Hening & Hagedorn v. Glanton
108 S.E. 256 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Wilson v. Wilder
97 S.E. 447 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Austin v. Long
63 S.E. 640 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Cornelia Planing Mill Co. v. Wilcox
59 S.E. 223 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.E. 366, 91 Ga. 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akers-v-kirke-co-ga-1893.