Baldwin v. Rodgers & Adams

Supreme Court of Georgia

Baldwin v. Rodgers & Adams

74 Ga. 815, 1885 Ga. LEXIS 411

DecidedApril 2, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 74 Ga. 815 (Baldwin v. Rodgers & Adams) 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

Baldwin v. Rodgers & Adams, 74 Ga. 815, 1885 Ga. LEXIS 411 (Ga. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Jackson, Chief Justice.

[On November 15,1883, Rodgers & Adams sued out an attachment for purchase money against Baldwin. It was [816]*816levied on certain personalty, which was replevied by the defendant. On the trial, the evidence for (be plaintiffs went to show that the debt was for goods sold’ to the defendant about November 3, and that they were in his possession when the levy was made. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the goods were not in his possession at (he time of the levy, but had been transferred to pay another debt; also that the goods were bought on thirty days’ time,-and that the debt was not due.

The jury found for the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. The motion was overruled, and he excepted.]

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

Jackson, Chief Justice.

[On November 15,1883, Rodgers & Adams sued out an attachment for purchase money against Baldwin. It was [816]*816levied on certain personalty, which was replevied by the defendant. On the trial, the evidence for (be plaintiffs went to show that the debt was for goods sold’ to the defendant about November 3, and that they were in his possession when the levy was made. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the goods were not in his possession at (he time of the levy, but had been transferred to pay another debt; also that the goods were bought on thirty days’ time,-and that the debt was not due.

The jury found for the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. The motion was overruled, and he excepted.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Ga. 815, 1885 Ga. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-rodgers-adams-ga-1885.