Eubanks v. Brunson & Dennard

Supreme Court of Georgia

Eubanks v. Brunson & Dennard

2 S.E. 685, 77 Ga. 498, 1887 Ga. LEXIS 126

DecidedJanuary 18, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 2 S.E. 685 (Eubanks v. Brunson & Dennard) 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

Eubanks v. Brunson & Dennard, 2 S.E. 685, 77 Ga. 498, 1887 Ga. LEXIS 126 (Ga. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

In this case, one T. B. Holmes procured advancements from Brunson & Dennard to enable him to make a crop, and in May he gave to them a lien on the crops to be made to secure such advancements as had been made and that were to be made. In June, Holmes abandoned the crop and turned it over to Eubanks. Eubanks, according to the testimony of Brunson, one of defendants in error, agreed, if Brunson & Dennard would make further advancements to him to make the crop, that he would assume all liabilty of Holmes to them which had been incurred. This Eubanks denied. The jury found the issue thus raised in favor of Brunson & Dennard. Eubanks moved for a new trial, which the court refused, and this is assigned as error.

The only question in the case is one of fact, and the jury settled this between the parties, and the superior court refused to interfere; and there being no abuse of discretion by that court, this court is powerless to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Blandford, Justice.

In this case, one T. B. Holmes procured advancements from Brunson & Dennard to enable him to make a crop, and in May he gave to them a lien on the crops to be made to secure such advancements as had been made and that were to be made. In June, Holmes abandoned the crop and turned it over to Eubanks. Eubanks, according to the testimony of Brunson, one of defendants in error, agreed, if Brunson & Dennard would make further advancements to him to make the crop, that he would assume all liabilty of Holmes to them which had been incurred. This Eubanks denied. The jury found the issue thus raised in favor of Brunson & Dennard. Eubanks moved for a new trial, which the court refused, and this is assigned as error.

The only question in the case is one of fact, and the jury settled this between the parties, and the superior court refused to interfere; and there being no abuse of discretion by that court, this court is powerless to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.E. 685, 77 Ga. 498, 1887 Ga. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eubanks-v-brunson-dennard-ga-1887.