Dacula Banking Co. v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dacula Banking Co. v. Hall

128 S.E. 69, 34 Ga. App. 33, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 14

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1925

Docket16168

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.E. 69 (Dacula Banking Co. v. Hall) 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

Dacula Banking Co. v. Hall, 128 S.E. 69, 34 Ga. App. 33, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Blood worth, J.

1. When all the facts of the case and the entire charge is considered, nothing in either of the two special grounds of the motion for a new trial attacking the charge requires a reversal of the judgment.

2. Under the petition in this case when supported by proper proof, the plaintiff would be authorized to recover “the sum of $100 principal; with interest at 4-%% semiannually from the month of November, 1918.” The verdict was for $100 principal and $40.75 interest from September 2, 1924. The interest found is excessive by $14.50. If the plaintiff will write off this amount from the interest stated in the verdict, the'judg-' ment will be affirmed; otherwise a new trial is ordered.

Judgment affirmed on condition.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Blood worth, J.

1. When all the facts of the case and the entire charge is considered, nothing in either of the two special grounds of the motion for a new trial attacking the charge requires a reversal of the judgment.

2. Under the petition in this case when supported by proper proof, the plaintiff would be authorized to recover “the sum of $100 principal; with interest at 4-%% semiannually from the month of November, 1918.” The verdict was for $100 principal and $40.75 interest from September 2, 1924. The interest found is excessive by $14.50. If the plaintiff will write off this amount from the interest stated in the verdict, the'judg-' ment will be affirmed; otherwise a new trial is ordered.

Judgment affirmed on condition.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 69, 34 Ga. App. 33, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dacula-banking-co-v-hall-gactapp-1925.