Coulter v. Couch

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coulter v. Couch

170 S.E. 302, 47 Ga. App. 283, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 375

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 2, 1933

Docket22931

StatusPublished

This text of 170 S.E. 302 (Coulter v. Couch) 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

Coulter v. Couch, 170 S.E. 302, 47 Ga. App. 283, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 375 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The only issue in this case was one of fact. While the evidence for the claimant would have supported a verdict for her, this court can not say as a matter of law that the finding of -the jury in favor of the plaintiff (who was a judgment creditor of the claimant’s husband) was not authorized by any evidence. Although the claimant and her husband testified that the property claimed belonged to the claimant, there was circumstantial evidence tending to show that it was owned by her husband. Furthermore, there was, as to the claimant and her husband, evidence adduced of an impeaching nature, and the jury, by the verdict, evidently rejected their testimony. The judge who heard the evidence, and observed the witnesses as they gave their testimony, approved the verdict; and, no error of law being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The only issue in this case was one of fact. While the evidence for the claimant would have supported a verdict for her, this court can not say as a matter of law that the finding of -the jury in favor of the plaintiff (who was a judgment creditor of the claimant’s husband) was not authorized by any evidence. Although the claimant and her husband testified that the property claimed belonged to the claimant, there was circumstantial evidence tending to show that it was owned by her husband. Furthermore, there was, as to the claimant and her husband, evidence adduced of an impeaching nature, and the jury, by the verdict, evidently rejected their testimony. The judge who heard the evidence, and observed the witnesses as they gave their testimony, approved the verdict; and, no error of law being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 S.E. 302, 47 Ga. App. 283, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coulter-v-couch-gactapp-1933.