Beard v. Hammock

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Beard v. Hammock

59 S.E. 335, 3 Ga. App. 118, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 572

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 25, 1907·No. 603·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Powell, J.

(After stating the facts.)

Hnder Beard’s version, Hammock’s contract was an original undertaking, not within the purview of the statute of frauds. According to Hammock’s testimony, it was an agreement to answer for the default of another, and, not being in writing, was. void. Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921); Chapman v. [120] Conwell, 1 Ga. App. 212 (3), (58 S. E. 137); Bluthenthal v. Moore, 111 Ga. 297 (36 S. E. 689). The evidence being conflicting, the judge of the superior court could not properly grant final judgment. He may still grant a new trial if he sees proper; for when the evidence is conflicting,-his discretion in ordering a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

(After stating the facts.)

Hnder Beard’s version, Hammock’s contract was an original undertaking, not within the purview of the statute of frauds. According to Hammock’s testimony, it was an agreement to answer for the default of another, and, not being in writing, was. void. Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921); Chapman v. [120] Conwell, 1 Ga. App. 212 (3), (58 S. E. 137); Bluthenthal v. Moore, 111 Ga. 297 (36 S. E. 689). The evidence being conflicting, the judge of the superior court could not properly grant final judgment. He may still grant a new trial if he sees proper; for when the evidence is conflicting,-his discretion in ordering a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment reversed.

Beard v. Hammock, 59 S.E. 335, 3 Ga. App. 118, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 572 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

59 S.E. 335 (Beard v. Hammock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related