Cline v. Milledgeville Banking Co.

62 S.E. 984, 131 Ga. 611, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 164
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided November 24, 1908·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

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.

All the Justices concur.

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

Cline v. Milledgeville Banking Co., 62 S.E. 984, 131 Ga. 611, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 164 (Ga. 1908).

62 S.E. 984 (Cline v. Milledgeville Banking Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sheppard v. Broome
107 S.E.2d 219 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Burney v. State
97 S.E. 85 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Hicks v. State
91 S.E. 57 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
McGee v. Young
64 S.E. 689 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)