Bryant v. Saul

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bryant v. Saul

80 Ga. App. 453

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 21, 1949

Docket32669

StatusPublished

This text of 80 Ga. App. 453 (Bryant v. Saul) 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

Bryant v. Saul, 80 Ga. App. 453 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

Under the provisions of USCA, Title 50, § 1899 (a) (2) the jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff’s primary purpose in seeking possession of the premises was for her own immediate and personal use and that the intention of allowing her family to occupy them is, under the circumstances, a part of her personal use, especially in view of the plaintiff’s ill health. (The case d,oes not involve an apartment house or duplex in the common sense of the word, but a large house superficially divided by the locking of doors into separate living quarters.) We do not think that the plaintiff’s testimony was so vague and contradictory as to require a finding against her. It is apparent from the record that the plaintiff could not speak English fluently. The jury heard and saw the plaintiff and was in a better position to evaluate her testimony. The Appellate Division of the Civil Court of Fulton County did not err in affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

Under the provisions of USCA, Title 50, § 1899 (a) (2) the jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff’s primary purpose in seeking possession of the premises was for her own immediate and personal use and that the intention of allowing her family to occupy them is, under the circumstances, a part of her personal use, especially in view of the plaintiff’s ill health. (The case d,oes not involve an apartment house or duplex in the common sense of the word, but a large house superficially divided by the locking of doors into separate living quarters.) We do not think that the plaintiff’s testimony was so vague and contradictory as to require a finding against her. It is apparent from the record that the plaintiff could not speak English fluently. The jury heard and saw the plaintiff and was in a better position to evaluate her testimony. The Appellate Division of the Civil Court of Fulton County did not err in affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Ga. App. 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-saul-gactapp-1949.