Bean v. Leggett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bean v. Leggett

93 S.E. 235, 20 Ga. App. 737, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1059

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 3, 1917

Docket8520

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E. 235 (Bean v. Leggett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bean v. Leggett, 93 S.E. 235, 20 Ga. App. 737, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1059 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. This was a suit against a married woman, on a note given for an automobile. She filed a plea in which she admitted signing the note, but alleged that the debt for which the note was given was that of her husband. In his charge the judge fully and fairly submitted this issue to the jury, who found in favor of the plaintiff. There was evidence to support the verdict. "This court has no power to determine that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of one party to a cause rather than the other, or to award a new trial in any case where there is any evidence sufficient to support the verdict rendered.” Bunn v. Hargraves, 3 Ca. App. 518 (4) (60 S. E. 223).

2. There is no merit in the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. This was a suit against a married woman, on a note given for an automobile. She filed a plea in which she admitted signing the note, but alleged that the debt for which the note was given was that of her husband. In his charge the judge fully and fairly submitted this issue to the jury, who found in favor of the plaintiff. There was evidence to support the verdict. "This court has no power to determine that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of one party to a cause rather than the other, or to award a new trial in any case where there is any evidence sufficient to support the verdict rendered.” Bunn v. Hargraves, 3 Ca. App. 518 (4) (60 S. E. 223).

2. There is no merit in the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 235, 20 Ga. App. 737, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bean-v-leggett-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack