Ginn v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ginn v. Johnson

41 S.E.2d 815, 74 Ga. App. 865, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 716

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1947

Docket31524.

StatusPublished

This text of 41 S.E.2d 815 (Ginn v. Johnson) 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

Ginn v. Johnson, 41 S.E.2d 815, 74 Ga. App. 865, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

Mr. and Mrs. Cecil R. Johnson instituted proceedings to dispossess R. T. Ginn in the Civil Court of DeKalb County. The issue of facts was tried by a judge without a jury. The judgment was for the plaintiffs. It was alleged in the certiorari that no demand was proved at the trial. The trial judge, in answer to the certiorari denied the correctness of this allegation of fact and set out in his answer his version of the testimony as to demand. The defendant filed a traverse to the judge’s answer. The issue thus formed was submitted to a jury in the superior court, which found against the traverse.

The only contention of the defendant as to why the case should be reversed is based on the ground that no demand was proved. The verdict of the jury settled this issue against him.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

Mr. and Mrs. Cecil R. Johnson instituted proceedings to dispossess R. T. Ginn in the Civil Court of DeKalb County. The issue of facts was tried by a judge without a jury. The judgment was for the plaintiffs. It was alleged in the certiorari that no demand was proved at the trial. The trial judge, in answer to the certiorari denied the correctness of this allegation of fact and set out in his answer his version of the testimony as to demand. The defendant filed a traverse to the judge’s answer. The issue thus formed was submitted to a jury in the superior court, which found against the traverse.

The only contention of the defendant as to why the case should be reversed is based on the ground that no demand was proved. The verdict of the jury settled this issue against him.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E.2d 815, 74 Ga. App. 865, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginn-v-johnson-gactapp-1947.