Etheridge v. Woodard

Supreme Court of Georgia

Etheridge v. Woodard

32 S.E. 122, 106 Ga. 251, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 71

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 17, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 S.E. 122 (Etheridge v. Woodard) 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.

Bluebook

Etheridge v. Woodard, 32 S.E. 122, 106 Ga. 251, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 71 (Ga. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, O. J.

Under the facts of the present case, as they ■•are disclosed by the record, there was no error in sustaining •the motion for nonsuit. The contract' set up by the plaintiff was in parol and for the sale of land. There was no evidence "to show performance or part performance on the part of either party. Even if plaintiff made a sufficient tender, it was after the legal right to redeem had expired. The defendant does not admit the contract alleged by the plaintiff, but denies it, ■and is therefore entitled to the protection afforded by the statute •of frauds. There were no facts alleged or proved by the plain-biff which would, under any circumstances, have authorized bhe jury to find in his favor, and the court properly sustained the motion for the grant of a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Simmons, O. J.

Under the facts of the present case, as they ■•are disclosed by the record, there was no error in sustaining •the motion for nonsuit. The contract' set up by the plaintiff was in parol and for the sale of land. There was no evidence "to show performance or part performance on the part of either party. Even if plaintiff made a sufficient tender, it was after the legal right to redeem had expired. The defendant does not admit the contract alleged by the plaintiff, but denies it, ■and is therefore entitled to the protection afforded by the statute •of frauds. There were no facts alleged or proved by the plain-biff which would, under any circumstances, have authorized bhe jury to find in his favor, and the court properly sustained the motion for the grant of a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.E. 122, 106 Ga. 251, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/etheridge-v-woodard-ga-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack