Cedartown Supply Co. v. Hooper

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cedartown Supply Co. v. Hooper

78 S.E. 686, 13 Ga. App. 29, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 14

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 25, 1913

Docket4828

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 686 (Cedartown Supply Co. v. Hooper) 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

Cedartown Supply Co. v. Hooper, 78 S.E. 686, 13 Ga. App. 29, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

The suit was for the value of a bale of cotton alleged to have been tortiously taken from the plaintiffs by the defendants, and converted to their own use. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a recovery by both of the plaintiffs, who were husband and wife, it appearing that both owned the land on which the cotton was grown, and that the bale of cotton had been delivered to the husband by the tenant in part payment of rent due both the husband and the wife on a rent note, though the note had been executed to the husband alone. The evidence was also sufficient to show that the defendants were joint trespassers; and, this being so, all were liable in damages for the greatest injury done by any one of them. Civil Code, § 4512. The verdict was fully supported by the evidence, and there is no merit in any assignment of error contained in the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

The suit was for the value of a bale of cotton alleged to have been tortiously taken from the plaintiffs by the defendants, and converted to their own use. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a recovery by both of the plaintiffs, who were husband and wife, it appearing that both owned the land on which the cotton was grown, and that the bale of cotton had been delivered to the husband by the tenant in part payment of rent due both the husband and the wife on a rent note, though the note had been executed to the husband alone. The evidence was also sufficient to show that the defendants were joint trespassers; and, this being so, all were liable in damages for the greatest injury done by any one of them. Civil Code, § 4512. The verdict was fully supported by the evidence, and there is no merit in any assignment of error contained in the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 686, 13 Ga. App. 29, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cedartown-supply-co-v-hooper-gactapp-1913.