Griffin v. Legget

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Griffin v. Legget

113 S.E. 43, 29 Ga. App. 24, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 23

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1922

Docket13489

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.E. 43 (Griffin v. Legget) 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

Griffin v. Legget, 113 S.E. 43, 29 Ga. App. 24, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This is a claim case in which a fi. fa. was levied on ungathered crops standing in the field. Upon the trial the undisputed evidence showed that the defendant in fi. fa had rented the land upon which the crops were grown, but there was an issue of fact as to whether in making 'the rent contract he was acting for himself or as agent for his wife, the claimant in the case. This was the controlling question in the case, and the jury resolved it in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa. by finding the property subject to the fi. fa. This finding was authorized by the evidence. Neither of the excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, when considered with the remainder of the charge, shows error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This is a claim case in which a fi. fa. was levied on ungathered crops standing in the field. Upon the trial the undisputed evidence showed that the defendant in fi. fa had rented the land upon which the crops were grown, but there was an issue of fact as to whether in making 'the rent contract he was acting for himself or as agent for his wife, the claimant in the case. This was the controlling question in the case, and the jury resolved it in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa. by finding the property subject to the fi. fa. This finding was authorized by the evidence. Neither of the excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, when considered with the remainder of the charge, shows error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 43, 29 Ga. App. 24, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-legget-gactapp-1922.