Hartley v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hartley v. Smith

111 S.E. 743, 28 Ga. App. 432, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 573

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket11241

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 743 (Hartley v. Smith) 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

Hartley v. Smith, 111 S.E. 743, 28 Ga. App. 432, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 573 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Plartley died March 11, 1918, .leaving as an asset of his estate five shares of stock in the Farmers State Bank, of Bartow. A year’s support, including this stock and comprising the entire estate of deceased “ after all just debts are paid,” was duly set aside to the widow and her three minor children. The stock-certificate held by the husband, and likewise the one issued in lieu thereof to the widow, showed on its face the following: "60% paid in and assessable.” The widow received one dividend on the stock, which was used for the benefit of herself and minor children. Later the bank was declared insolvent, receivers were appointed, and suit was brought by them against the widow and others for the balance owing on the stock. A verdict was directed and a judgment rendered against her for the full balance due for the stock. The trial judge overruled the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and she excepted to his judgment. This court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. 26 Ga. App. 212 (105 S. E. 725). Upon certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court, and held as quoted in the headnote. See Hartley v. Smith, 152 Ga. 723 (111 S. E. 41). It is therefore ordered that the former judgment of this court in this case be vacated; and the judgment of the trial court, overruling the motion for a new trial, is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Plartley died March 11, 1918, .leaving as an asset of his estate five shares of stock in the Farmers State Bank, of Bartow. A year’s support, including this stock and comprising the entire estate of deceased “ after all just debts are paid,” was duly set aside to the widow and her three minor children. The stock-certificate held by the husband, and likewise the one issued in lieu thereof to the widow, showed on its face the following: "60% paid in and assessable.” The widow received one dividend on the stock, which was used for the benefit of herself and minor children. Later the bank was declared insolvent, receivers were appointed, and suit was brought by them against the widow and others for the balance owing on the stock. A verdict was directed and a judgment rendered against her for the full balance due for the stock. The trial judge overruled the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and she excepted to his judgment. This court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. 26 Ga. App. 212 (105 S. E. 725). Upon certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court, and held as quoted in the headnote. See Hartley v. Smith, 152 Ga. 723 (111 S. E. 41). It is therefore ordered that the former judgment of this court in this case be vacated; and the judgment of the trial court, overruling the motion for a new trial, is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 743, 28 Ga. App. 432, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-smith-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack