Hall v. Mize

83 S.E. 92, 142 Ga. 395, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 722
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 18, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 S.E. 92 (Hall v. Mize) 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
Hall v. Mize, 83 S.E. 92, 142 Ga. 395, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 722 (Ga. 1914).

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. Under the evidence contained in the record, there was no error in admitting secondary evidence of the alleged lost deed.

2. Where it is sought to bind one by the acts of another who is alleged to be his agent, the agency can not be proved by testimony of the statements of the alleged agent. But where suit was brought by an administratrix against one in possession of land, to recover a half-interest in it, and the defendant claimed to hold the land as his own, there was no error in admitting evidence of admissions by the defendant that he was acting as the agent of the decedent (his wife) while they lived together on the land.

3. The newly discovered evidence was not of a character to require a new trial.

[396]*396September 18, 1914. Complaint for land. Before Judge Meadow. Elbert superior court. January 4, 1913. Worley & Nall and P. P. Proffitt, for plaintiff in error. C. P. Harris and George G. Grogan, contra.

4. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Akridge v. Atlanta Journal Co.
194 S.E. 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 S.E. 92, 142 Ga. 395, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-mize-ga-1914.