Cargyle v. Belcher

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cargyle v. Belcher

43 Ga. 207

DecidedJuly 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Ga. 207 (Cargyle v. Belcher) 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

Cargyle v. Belcher, 43 Ga. 207 (Ga. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

McCay, Judge.

Whilst we have some doubts whether this verdict is such an one as brings it within the discretion of the Judge, under section 3667 of the Code, yet, as the Judge has acted, we will not overrule his judgment. Without question, the verdict is very small. Considering the value received by the defendants, one cannot but feel that the jury has acted hastily, since the verdict is for just the amount of the value of Confederate money at the maturity of the note. But it must be remembered that a year had intervened, and at the rapid race, downward, of Confederate money, equity would not have compelled the plaintiff to take it unless promptly paid: Smith vs. Bryan, 34th Georgia, 53. We suspect the jury did not take these circumstances fully into consideration, and we hardly think it was an abuse of the discretion of the Judge to grant a new trial. Necessarily, as the law gives him a discretion, this Court is bound to recognize that discretion. We have no right to overrule him, merely because we do not fully agree with him. His discretion must have been abused before his exercise of it is illegal, and it is only of illegalities that this Court has jurisdiction.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McCay, Judge.

Whilst we have some doubts whether this verdict is such an one as brings it within the discretion of the Judge, under section 3667 of the Code, yet, as the Judge has acted, we will not overrule his judgment. Without question, the verdict is very small. Considering the value received by the defendants, one cannot but feel that the jury has acted hastily, since the verdict is for just the amount of the value of Confederate money at the maturity of the note. But it must be remembered that a year had intervened, and at the rapid race, downward, of Confederate money, equity would not have compelled the plaintiff to take it unless promptly paid: Smith vs. Bryan, 34th Georgia, 53. We suspect the jury did not take these circumstances fully into consideration, and we hardly think it was an abuse of the discretion of the Judge to grant a new trial. Necessarily, as the law gives him a discretion, this Court is bound to recognize that discretion. We have no right to overrule him, merely because we do not fully agree with him. His discretion must have been abused before his exercise of it is illegal, and it is only of illegalities that this Court has jurisdiction.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Ga. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cargyle-v-belcher-ga-1871.