Federal Land Bank v. Shingler

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Federal Land Bank v. Shingler

157 S.E. 911, 43 Ga. App. 92, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 193

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 31, 1931

Docket21099

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 157 S.E. 911 (Federal Land Bank v. Shingler) 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

Federal Land Bank v. Shingler, 157 S.E. 911, 43 Ga. App. 92, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The transfer of this case by the Supreme Court to this court is tantamount to a ruling that it is not a case in equity.

2. Under the agreed statement of facts and the evidence adduced upon the trial, the plaintiff bank had no cause of action at law against the defendants; and the trial judge, sitting, by consent, without the inter[93]*93vention of a jury, did not err in rendering judgment in favor of the principal defendant, and in refusing to render judgment against the other defendant, a corporation, which had filed no defense to the suit, but which was not a resident of the county in which the suit was filed and tried.

Decided March 31, 1931. N. L. Stapleton, Harry D. Reed, for plaintiff. C. E. Hay, J. T. Q-oree, J. A. Drake, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed,

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The transfer of this case by the Supreme Court to this court is tantamount to a ruling that it is not a case in equity.

2. Under the agreed statement of facts and the evidence adduced upon the trial, the plaintiff bank had no cause of action at law against the defendants; and the trial judge, sitting, by consent, without the inter[93]*93vention of a jury, did not err in rendering judgment in favor of the principal defendant, and in refusing to render judgment against the other defendant, a corporation, which had filed no defense to the suit, but which was not a resident of the county in which the suit was filed and tried.

Decided March 31, 1931. N. L. Stapleton, Harry D. Reed, for plaintiff. C. E. Hay, J. T. Q-oree, J. A. Drake, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed,

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E. 911, 43 Ga. App. 92, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-land-bank-v-shingler-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack