Farmers Bank v. Bolton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Farmers Bank v. Bolton

134 S.E. 72, 162 Ga. 428, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 208

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 25, 1926

DocketNo. 5227

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 72 (Farmers Bank v. Bolton) 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

Farmers Bank v. Bolton, 134 S.E. 72, 162 Ga. 428, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 208 (Ga. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The motion for a new trial consists of the usual general grounds and two grounds set out in an amendment. Held:

1. The charge of the court on the subject of a married woman becoming security was not subject to the criticism made. The charge was full and fair, and included the instruction that after the husband’s death the widow might legally become security. The verdict in effect finds that Mrs. McDonald was security for Bolton. If the language of the charge was subject to any criticism, the verdict shows that it did not result in injury to the movant.

2. The court, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, did not err in omitting to charge as contended in the second amended ground. The law on the subject of secret equities between the husband and wife was substantially and correctly covered in the charge.

3. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed-

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

The motion for a new trial consists of the usual general grounds and two grounds set out in an amendment. Held:

1. The charge of the court on the subject of a married woman becoming security was not subject to the criticism made. The charge was full and fair, and included the instruction that after the husband’s death the widow might legally become security. The verdict in effect finds that Mrs. McDonald was security for Bolton. If the language of the charge was subject to any criticism, the verdict shows that it did not result in injury to the movant.

2. The court, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, did not err in omitting to charge as contended in the second amended ground. The law on the subject of secret equities between the husband and wife was substantially and correctly covered in the charge.

3. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed-

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 72, 162 Ga. 428, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-bank-v-bolton-ga-1926.

Opinion

3. The evidence supports the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack