Fain v. Cornett

25 Ga. 184
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 25 Ga. 184 (Fain v. Cornett) 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
Fain v. Cornett, 25 Ga. 184 (Ga. 1858).

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin J.

delivering the opinion.

" This was an action brought by a son-in-law, to recover of the widow and legal representative of his father-in-law, afamily of negroes, alleged to have been given to the plaintiff and his wife, by the defendant’s intestate.

Considerable testimony was offered on both sides of this case. The verdict was for the defendant, and there was a motion for a new trial upon two grounds.

First, because the verdict w;as contrary to evidence; second, on account of the misdirection of the Court in its charge to the jury.

As we intend sending this case back, we forbear to express any opinion upon the proof, as we do not wish to influence the finding of the jury upon the proof, upon the next trial.

The Court charged the jury, that if they * believed from the testimony that a gift of the negroes had been made by [186]*186U. D. Cornett” (the father-in-law,) cito the plaintiff, they should find for the plaintiff; but still, if there was testimony rebutting the proof that a gift of the negroes had been made, they should find for the defendant.”

The word rebutting” has a two-fold signification, both in common and legal parlance. It sometimes means contradictory evidence only; at other times conclusive or overcoming testimony. It is possible, nay probable, that the* Judge, in his charge, intended to use it in the latter sense; and if we were sure he was so understood by the jury, we would not disturb the verdict. Indeed, had the word rebutting but one meaning, we should feel bound to hold that the Judge was properly understood by the jury. But seeing that it has a more restricted definition and use, viz: countervailing or opposing, as well as overcoming proof, and fearing that the juay might have believed that the Court designed to instruct them that if there was any opposing proof, they should find for the defendant, we feel constrained to send this case back for a re-hearing.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Georgia, Ashburn, Sylvester & Camilla Railway Co. v. Rutherford
121 S.E.2d 159 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Cox v. State
21 S.E.2d 283 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Shaw
149 S.E. 657 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
State ex rel. J. B. Speed & Co. v. Traylor
132 N.E. 608 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1921)
King v. Luck Illustrating Co.
94 S.E. 890 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Gainesville & Northwestern Railroad v. Galloway
87 S.E. 1093 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Ocean Steamship Co. v. McAlpin
69 Ga. 437 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Ga. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fain-v-cornett-ga-1858.