Brandt v. Buckley

107 S.E. 773, 151 Ga. 582, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 337
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1921
DocketNo. 2150
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 773 (Brandt v. Buckley) 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
Brandt v. Buckley, 107 S.E. 773, 151 Ga. 582, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 337 (Ga. 1921).

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

The purchaser of shares of corporate stock, the price of which he had paid in advance, brought an action against the seller to require him to specifically' perform the contract by delivering the stock. The only prayers of the original petition were that the defendant be enjoined from selling or disposing of the stock, and that he be required to deliver the same to petitioner in accordance with the contract. On the trial the petition was amended by allegations to the effect that the defendant had rendered specific performance of the contract impossible, by reason of his transfer and assignment of the stock in question to other persons, and because of his removal, since the institution and service of this suit, from the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore that a decree for specific performance against him could not be enforced; and accordingly, the petitioner prayed for a recovery of damages for a [583]*583breach of the contract by the defendant to deliver the stock. A verdict was rendered in behalf of-the petitioner for damages, and the defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, the same being on the sole ground that the verdict was without evidence to support it. Held, that the Court of Appeals, and not the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction to review the judgment refusing a new trial.

No. 2150. June 15, 1921. Complaint. Before Judge Hodges. Clarke superior court. May 29, 1920. Oreen & Michael, for plaintiff in error. Erwin, Erwin & Nix, contra.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Lee v. Green Land Co., Inc.
527 S.E.2d 204 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2000)
Overstreet v. Schulman
46 S.E.2d 344 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Holloway v. Dorsey
31 S.E.2d 349 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Martin v. Home Owners Loan Corporation
31 S.E.2d 407 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Mills Lumber Co. v. Milam
192 S.E. 35 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Jones v. Lawman
190 S.E. 607 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Collier v. City of Barnesville
162 S.E. 530 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Martin v. Deaton
158 S.E. 331 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Byrd v. Piha
149 S.E. 699 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Coats v. Casey
133 S.E. 237 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Koehler
132 S.E. 64 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
City of Reynolds v. Carter
125 S.E. 380 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Cochran v. Stephens
116 S.E. 303 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 S.E. 773, 151 Ga. 582, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandt-v-buckley-ga-1921.