Cline v. Milledgeville Banking Co.
This text of 62 S.E. 984 (Cline v. Milledgeville Banking Co.) 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.
Opinion
1. The principles of law announced in those portions of the court’s instructions to the jury to which exception is taken are in accord with the law as enunciated in the eases of Johnson v. Leffler, 122 Ga. 670 (50 S. E. 488), and Rood V. Wright, 124 Ga. 849 (53 S. E. 390), on the subject of the wife’s liability on a note for money borrowed by the wife for the purpose of paying the husband’s creditors.
2. A charge embracing an abstractly correct and pertinent principle of law is not rendered erroneous by a failure to charge some other legal principle applicable to the case. Central Ry. Co. v. Grady, 113 Ga. 1045 (39 S. E. 441).
3. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 S.E. 984, 131 Ga. 611, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cline-v-milledgeville-banking-co-ga-1908.