Hartley v. Marietta Nursery Co.

76 S.E. 39, 138 Ga. 736, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 681
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 27, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 39 (Hartley v. Marietta Nursery Co.) 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
Hartley v. Marietta Nursery Co., 76 S.E. 39, 138 Ga. 736, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 681 (Ga. 1912).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. When in a bill of exceptions it is recited that the same was tendered “within thirty days from the date of the decisions and judgments complained of,” the writ of error will not be dismissed because of the failure of the presiding judge to certify the same within the statutory period, unless it be made to appear that his failure to do so was caused by some act of the plaintiff in error or his counsel. Civil Code, § 6187; Proctor v. Piedmont Cement Co., 134 Ga. 391 (67 S. E. 942).

2. Proof of weakness of mind, not amounting to imbecility, is not sufficient to warrant a jury in setting aside a contract, there being no proof of fraud or undue influence. Johnson v. Coleman, 134 Ga. 696 (68 S. E. 480). But where there was evidence tending to show that the party making the contract was generally of weak mind, and a physician who had attended him for several years, whose testimony was corroborated by other evidence, testified: “His condition mentally and physically grew weaker and weaker from 1902 to 1907 as a result of the epileptic fits which he had. I would say, from my knowledge' of his general condition for before and after Eebruary, 1907 [the date of the contract], that he was-non compos mentis at that time,” — such evidence was sufficient to raise a question for determination by the jury as to the mental capacity of the maker of the contract, and the grant of a nonsuit was improper. Lunday v. Foreman, 129 Ga. 595 (59 S. E. 276); Gable v. Gable, 130 Ga. 689 (61 S. E. 595).

3. Other assignments of error were abandoned, and will not be considered.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Scott & Davis and Oheney & Giles, for plaintiff. Glay & Morris, for defendant.

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

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Jones
104 S.E.2d 725 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Capers v. Ball
87 S.E.2d 85 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Clay v. Floyd
66 S.E.2d 916 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Boney v. Smallwood
43 S.E.2d 271 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Jones v. Hogans
29 S.E.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Brumfield v. Jackson
19 S.E.2d 279 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Turner v. Turner
12 S.E.2d 633 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Taylor v. Warren
166 S.E. 225 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Sweat v. Barnhill
155 S.E. 18 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Pappa v. Pope
103 S.E. 99 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 S.E. 39, 138 Ga. 736, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-marietta-nursery-co-ga-1912.