Bradley v. Duggar

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bradley v. Duggar

95 S.E. 996, 22 Ga. App. 386, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 352

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1918

Docket9113

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 996 (Bradley v. Duggar) 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

Bradley v. Duggar, 95 S.E. 996, 22 Ga. App. 386, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 352 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. Where the verdict can be supported under any proper view or theory of the evidence, it will not be set aside as being contrary thereto. There was evidence sufficient to support the finding that the timber was unlawfully taken, and there was evidence, admitted without objection, as to its value, which authorizes the finding as to the amount of the injury sustained.

2. The defense set up by way of recoupment, whereby the defendant sought to recover the expenses alleged to have been incurred in guarding the skidder, by reason of the alleged previous words, acts, and threats of the plaintiff, should not have been limited by the charge to proof of his , previous acts; and for this reason the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

1. Where the verdict can be supported under any proper view or theory of the evidence, it will not be set aside as being contrary thereto. There was evidence sufficient to support the finding that the timber was unlawfully taken, and there was evidence, admitted without objection, as to its value, which authorizes the finding as to the amount of the injury sustained.

2. The defense set up by way of recoupment, whereby the defendant sought to recover the expenses alleged to have been incurred in guarding the skidder, by reason of the alleged previous words, acts, and threats of the plaintiff, should not have been limited by the charge to proof of his , previous acts; and for this reason the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 996, 22 Ga. App. 386, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-duggar-gactapp-1918.