Harris v. Folsom
This text of 87 S.E. 1090 (Harris v. Folsom) 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.
Opinion
1. The testimony in behalf of the plaintiff sufficiently supported the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
2. Theward in whose behalf the guardian brought suit, and who testified for the other party and against his guardian, had been previously adjudged insane, and the jury were authorized to find that this mental state still existed, and to reject his testimony for that reason. The principle enunciated in Southern Bank v. Goette, 108 Ga. 796 (2) (33 S. E. 974), is therefore not applicable. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 S.E. 1090, 17 Ga. App. 676, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-folsom-gactapp-1915.