Gormley v. Whitworth

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gormley v. Whitworth

166 S.E. 190, 175 Ga. 778, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 328

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 12, 1932

DocketNo. 9164

StatusPublished

This text of 166 S.E. 190 (Gormley v. Whitworth) 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

Gormley v. Whitworth, 166 S.E. 190, 175 Ga. 778, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 328 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Gormley, State superintendent of banks, brought suit against Whitworth to recover on his liability as a stockholder of the Bank of Menlo. The petition has two counts. The first count seeks to hold Whitworth' liable on the theory that he transferred his stock to H. A.. Garner, an insolvent and irresponsible person, with the view and intention to avoid and escape the super-added liability imposed upon him by law. The second count seeks to hold Whitworth liable on the theory that the transfer was incomplete, because Whitworth did not cause Garner to receipt the [779]*779stock-stub as required by law. A verdict for the defendant was returned. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the general grounds and on four special grounds.

The verdict is supported by evidence. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., absent.

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

Gilbert, J.

Gormley, State superintendent of banks, brought suit against Whitworth to recover on his liability as a stockholder of the Bank of Menlo. The petition has two counts. The first count seeks to hold Whitworth' liable on the theory that he transferred his stock to H. A.. Garner, an insolvent and irresponsible person, with the view and intention to avoid and escape the super-added liability imposed upon him by law. The second count seeks to hold Whitworth liable on the theory that the transfer was incomplete, because Whitworth did not cause Garner to receipt the [779]*779stock-stub as required by law. A verdict for the defendant was returned. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the general grounds and on four special grounds.

The verdict is supported by evidence. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 190, 175 Ga. 778, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gormley-v-whitworth-ga-1932.