Gilreath v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gilreath v. Murphy

128 S.E. 818, 34 Ga. App. 223, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 163

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 29, 1925

Docket16542

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.E. 818 (Gilreath v. Murphy) 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

Gilreath v. Murphy, 128 S.E. 818, 34 Ga. App. 223, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 163 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff filed his declaration in attachment against Nelson Gilreath and Joe Gilreath, joining them in the same suit. Upon the trial the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff $166.99.” This meant a verdict against both defendants. However, the undisputed evidence upon the trial disclosed that Joe Gilreath, one of the defendants, during all the transactions involved in the suit, was a minor, living with and working for his father, the other defendant. Under these facts Joe Gilreath was without any legal liability in the transactions upon which the suit was based, and the verdict was contrary to law, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur

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

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff filed his declaration in attachment against Nelson Gilreath and Joe Gilreath, joining them in the same suit. Upon the trial the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff $166.99.” This meant a verdict against both defendants. However, the undisputed evidence upon the trial disclosed that Joe Gilreath, one of the defendants, during all the transactions involved in the suit, was a minor, living with and working for his father, the other defendant. Under these facts Joe Gilreath was without any legal liability in the transactions upon which the suit was based, and the verdict was contrary to law, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 818, 34 Ga. App. 223, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilreath-v-murphy-gactapp-1925.