Gross v. Higginbotham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gross v. Higginbotham

130 S.E. 371, 34 Ga. App. 549, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 408

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1925

Docket16360

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 371 (Gross v. Higginbotham) 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

Gross v. Higginbotham, 130 S.E. 371, 34 Ga. App. 549, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

“The delivery of personal property into the exclusive possession of'.a child living separate from the parent shall create a presumption of a gift to the child. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of an actual contract of lending, or from circumstances from which such a contract may be inferred.” Civil Code (1910), § 4150. In the instant trover suit the question of whether the transaction involved amounted to a gift of certain cattle by a parent to the defendant child was a question of fact for the jury (see Respass v. Young, 11 Ga. 114); and the jury, under the charge of the court, which is not excepted to, having found for the defendant, and there being sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, which is approved by the trial court, this court can not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., oonowr.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

“The delivery of personal property into the exclusive possession of'.a child living separate from the parent shall create a presumption of a gift to the child. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of an actual contract of lending, or from circumstances from which such a contract may be inferred.” Civil Code (1910), § 4150. In the instant trover suit the question of whether the transaction involved amounted to a gift of certain cattle by a parent to the defendant child was a question of fact for the jury (see Respass v. Young, 11 Ga. 114); and the jury, under the charge of the court, which is not excepted to, having found for the defendant, and there being sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, which is approved by the trial court, this court can not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., oonowr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 371, 34 Ga. App. 549, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-higginbotham-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack