Harris v. Gay

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. Gay

85 S.E. 355, 16 Ga. App. 342, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 617

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1915

Docket5811

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 355 (Harris v. Gay) 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. Gay, 85 S.E. 355, 16 Ga. App. 342, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 617 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. The contentions of both parties to a suit should, in the court’s charge to the jury, be presented with equal fullness. Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Sikes, 4 Ga. App. 7 (6), 12 (60 S. E. 868). Where A. buys a horse from B., and gives his promissory notes for the purchase-money, and afterwards complains to B. that the horse is unsound, and B. gives a credit of $50 to A., and, on the trial of a suit of B. upon the notes, the contention of B. is that this amount was to be credited on. the notes as completely covering the defects of the horse, and the contention of A. is that the amount was not to be credited as entirely covering the defects of the horse, but that this credit was only for loss of the services of the horse up to the time the credit was given, and the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, states the contention of B., the contention of A. should also be stated. In this case the court failed to state the contention of the defendant to the jury as outlined above, and the judgment must therefore be reversed.

2. There is no merit in .any of the assignments of error other than those dealt with above. Judgment reversed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. The contentions of both parties to a suit should, in the court’s charge to the jury, be presented with equal fullness. Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Sikes, 4 Ga. App. 7 (6), 12 (60 S. E. 868). Where A. buys a horse from B., and gives his promissory notes for the purchase-money, and afterwards complains to B. that the horse is unsound, and B. gives a credit of $50 to A., and, on the trial of a suit of B. upon the notes, the contention of B. is that this amount was to be credited on. the notes as completely covering the defects of the horse, and the contention of A. is that the amount was not to be credited as entirely covering the defects of the horse, but that this credit was only for loss of the services of the horse up to the time the credit was given, and the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, states the contention of B., the contention of A. should also be stated. In this case the court failed to state the contention of the defendant to the jury as outlined above, and the judgment must therefore be reversed.

2. There is no merit in .any of the assignments of error other than those dealt with above. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 355, 16 Ga. App. 342, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-gay-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack