Bedgood-Howell Co. v. Moore

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bedgood-Howell Co. v. Moore

51 S.E. 420, 123 Ga. 336, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 461

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 S.E. 420 (Bedgood-Howell Co. v. Moore) 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

Bedgood-Howell Co. v. Moore, 51 S.E. 420, 123 Ga. 336, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 461 (Ga. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, P. J.

1. “If a written contract be altered intentionally, and in a material part thereof, by a person claiming a benefit under it, with, intent to defraud the other party, such alteration voids the whole contract, at the option of the other party.” Civil Code, § 3702.

2. An intentional and fraudulent insertion of additional property in a chattel mortgage by the mortgagee renders the instrument void. Bower v. Cole, 74 Tex. 222; Hollingsworth v. Holbrook, 80 Iowa, 151.

3. “ The materiality of an alteration is a question of law; the fact of an alteration is a question for the jury.” Civil Code, §3703. That the court, in one portion of its charge, leaves the materiality of an alleged alteration to the jury, is not cause for a new trial, when the alteration, if made, was unquestionably material, and the jury found that it was made.

4. Refusal of an oral request to charge is not cause for a new trial.

5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, C. J., absent

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

Fish, P. J.

1. “If a written contract be altered intentionally, and in a material part thereof, by a person claiming a benefit under it, with, intent to defraud the other party, such alteration voids the whole contract, at the option of the other party.” Civil Code, § 3702.

2. An intentional and fraudulent insertion of additional property in a chattel mortgage by the mortgagee renders the instrument void. Bower v. Cole, 74 Tex. 222; Hollingsworth v. Holbrook, 80 Iowa, 151.

3. “ The materiality of an alteration is a question of law; the fact of an alteration is a question for the jury.” Civil Code, §3703. That the court, in one portion of its charge, leaves the materiality of an alleged alteration to the jury, is not cause for a new trial, when the alteration, if made, was unquestionably material, and the jury found that it was made.

4. Refusal of an oral request to charge is not cause for a new trial.

5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, C. J., absent

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 S.E. 420, 123 Ga. 336, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedgood-howell-co-v-moore-ga-1905.

Opinion

5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack