Bond v. First National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bond v. First National Bank

92 S.E. 285, 19 Ga. App. 817, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 380

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 25, 1917

Docket8231

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 285 (Bond v. First National Bank) 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

Bond v. First National Bank, 92 S.E. 285, 19 Ga. App. 817, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 380 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Droyles, P. J.

1. To avoid a contract on account of mental incapacity, there must be an entire loss of understanding. Frizzell v. Reed, 77 Ga. 724; Maddox v. Simmons, 31 Ga. 512, 527; Nance v. Stockburger, 111 Ga. 821 (36 S. E. 100) ; DeNieff v. Howell, 138 Ga. 248 (75 S. E. 202). (n) One who has not strength of mind and reason equal to a clear and full understanding of his act in making a contract is one who is afflicted with an entire loss of understanding. Barlow v. Strange, 120 Ga. 1015, 1018 (48 S. E. 344).

2. In the instant ease, while there was abundant evidence tending to show that the defendant was not mentally incapacitated to make the contract sued upon, yet there was some evidence to the contrary, and this issue should have been submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions. The court therefore erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, and in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenhins and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

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

Droyles, P. J.

1. To avoid a contract on account of mental incapacity, there must be an entire loss of understanding. Frizzell v. Reed, 77 Ga. 724; Maddox v. Simmons, 31 Ga. 512, 527; Nance v. Stockburger, 111 Ga. 821 (36 S. E. 100) ; DeNieff v. Howell, 138 Ga. 248 (75 S. E. 202). (n) One who has not strength of mind and reason equal to a clear and full understanding of his act in making a contract is one who is afflicted with an entire loss of understanding. Barlow v. Strange, 120 Ga. 1015, 1018 (48 S. E. 344).

2. In the instant ease, while there was abundant evidence tending to show that the defendant was not mentally incapacitated to make the contract sued upon, yet there was some evidence to the contrary, and this issue should have been submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions. The court therefore erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, and in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenhins and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 285, 19 Ga. App. 817, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-first-national-bank-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack