Blount v. Brinson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blount v. Brinson

162 S.E. 726, 44 Ga. App. 662, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 444

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1932

Docket21515

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.E. 726 (Blount v. Brinson) 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

Blount v. Brinson, 162 S.E. 726, 44 Ga. App. 662, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. In this suit, begun in the court of ordinary and by consent appealed to the superior court, to set aside a judgment of the court of ordinary granting letters of dismission to an administratrix, upon the ground that the judgment was obtained by' fraud practiced on the ordinary, while the evidence for the plaintiff tended to establish the allegations of the petition, yet the evidence for the defendant administratrix was to the contrary and authorized the inference that all facts touching the condition of the estate were fully disclosed to the ordinary, and thus that the judgment was not induced by fraud even though it may have been erroneous and subject to correction upon a direct appeal or review.

2. The evidence being sufficient to support the verdict in favor of the defendant upon the issue of fraud, the trial court did not err in refusing the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds only; and the verdict, therefore, can not be disturbed by this court. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. G. S. Glaxion, II. T. Hides, for plaintiff in error. ' W. G. Brinson, J. L. Kent, contra.

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

Bell, J.

1. In this suit, begun in the court of ordinary and by consent appealed to the superior court, to set aside a judgment of the court of ordinary granting letters of dismission to an administratrix, upon the ground that the judgment was obtained by' fraud practiced on the ordinary, while the evidence for the plaintiff tended to establish the allegations of the petition, yet the evidence for the defendant administratrix was to the contrary and authorized the inference that all facts touching the condition of the estate were fully disclosed to the ordinary, and thus that the judgment was not induced by fraud even though it may have been erroneous and subject to correction upon a direct appeal or review.

2. The evidence being sufficient to support the verdict in favor of the defendant upon the issue of fraud, the trial court did not err in refusing the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds only; and the verdict, therefore, can not be disturbed by this court. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. G. S. Glaxion, II. T. Hides, for plaintiff in error. ' W. G. Brinson, J. L. Kent, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 726, 44 Ga. App. 662, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blount-v-brinson-gactapp-1932.