Harris v. Fineman & Goldsmith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. Fineman & Goldsmith

80 S.E. 700, 14 Ga. App. 313, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 238

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1914

Docket5310

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.E. 700 (Harris v. Fineman & Goldsmith) 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

Harris v. Fineman & Goldsmith, 80 S.E. 700, 14 Ga. App. 313, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Roan, J.

Fineman & Goldsmith brought suit against J. E. Toole and J. A. Harris for the sum of $500, upon a contract of guaranty entered into by them, in which “The said J. E. Toole and J. A. Harris hereby guarantee, indemnify, and agree to save harmless the said Fineman & Goldsmith, to the extent of $500, from any and all loss and expense which they may suffer or be put to, growing directly or indirectly out of any credit they may extend to said Armor & Collins.” The petition alleged, and the proof showed, an indebtedness due them by Armor & Collins, and the insolvency of that firm. The defendants pleaded a cancellation of the contract, and that they were not indebted in any sum. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount sued for. The defendants made a motion for new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence; the motion was overruled, and J. A. Harris, one of the defendants, assigns error upon the overruling of the motion. There is no merit in the motion for a new trial. The verdict was amply supported by the evidence, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion. Judgment affirmed.

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

Roan, J.

Fineman & Goldsmith brought suit against J. E. Toole and J. A. Harris for the sum of $500, upon a contract of guaranty entered into by them, in which “The said J. E. Toole and J. A. Harris hereby guarantee, indemnify, and agree to save harmless the said Fineman & Goldsmith, to the extent of $500, from any and all loss and expense which they may suffer or be put to, growing directly or indirectly out of any credit they may extend to said Armor & Collins.” The petition alleged, and the proof showed, an indebtedness due them by Armor & Collins, and the insolvency of that firm. The defendants pleaded a cancellation of the contract, and that they were not indebted in any sum. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount sued for. The defendants made a motion for new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence; the motion was overruled, and J. A. Harris, one of the defendants, assigns error upon the overruling of the motion. There is no merit in the motion for a new trial. The verdict was amply supported by the evidence, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 700, 14 Ga. App. 313, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-fineman-goldsmith-gactapp-1914.