Dougherty v. Central Bank & Trust Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dougherty v. Central Bank & Trust Corp.

112 S.E. 737, 28 Ga. App. 642, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 751

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1922

Docket12725

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 737 (Dougherty v. Central Bank & Trust Corp.) 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

Dougherty v. Central Bank & Trust Corp., 112 S.E. 737, 28 Ga. App. 642, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It is proper for the judge to direct a verdict only where the evidence is without conflict, and that introduced, with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, demands a particular verdict. Civil Code (1910), § 5926. Considering the conflicts in the evidence, as shown by the foregoing statements of facts, and other conflicts therein as shown by the record, a verdict for the defendant was not demanded. The case should have been submitted to the jury to determine whether or not the bank was negligent in permitting Vincent to enter the safe-deposit box of the plaintiff, and, if it was, whether or not the plaintiff suffered-any loss by reason of this negligence.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It is proper for the judge to direct a verdict only where the evidence is without conflict, and that introduced, with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, demands a particular verdict. Civil Code (1910), § 5926. Considering the conflicts in the evidence, as shown by the foregoing statements of facts, and other conflicts therein as shown by the record, a verdict for the defendant was not demanded. The case should have been submitted to the jury to determine whether or not the bank was negligent in permitting Vincent to enter the safe-deposit box of the plaintiff, and, if it was, whether or not the plaintiff suffered-any loss by reason of this negligence.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 737, 28 Ga. App. 642, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dougherty-v-central-bank-trust-corp-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack