Brooks v. Ball

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brooks v. Ball

122 S.E. 716, 32 Ga. App. 48, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 248

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1924

Docket14969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 716 (Brooks v. Ball) 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

Brooks v. Ball, 122 S.E. 716, 32 Ga. App. 48, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The evidence failing to establish the fact that “Mr. Conger” was the agent of plaintiff, the court did not err in excluding the following evidence of Mrs. Brooks, the defendant: “I told Mr. Conger when I indorsed the note that I would not be responsible for the payment of it.”

2. The defendant having pleaded an affirmative defense and admitted a prima facie case and assumed the burden of proof, and having failed to establish her defense, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment afjvrmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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