Heath v. Davis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Heath v. Davis

192 S.E. 727, 184 Ga. 704, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 614

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 16, 1937

DocketNo. 11891

StatusPublished

This text of 192 S.E. 727 (Heath v. Davis) 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

Heath v. Davis, 192 S.E. 727, 184 Ga. 704, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 614 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Hutcheson, Justice.

1. There was sufficient evidence adduced on the trial of the ca:se to authorize the charge by the court giving to the jury substantially the law as set out in the Code, § 37-116, that “Notice sufficient to excite attention and put a party on inquiry shall be notice of everything to which it is afterwards found such inquiry might have led. Ignorance of a fact, duo to negligence, shall be equivalent to knowledge, in fixing the rights of the parties.”

2. Tlie evidence was' sufficient to authorize the verdiet, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., who dissents, and Bech, P. J., and Bell, J., ahsent because of illness. Edwards & Edwards, for plaintiff. Walter Matthews, for defendant.

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

Hutcheson, Justice.

1. There was sufficient evidence adduced on the trial of the ca:se to authorize the charge by the court giving to the jury substantially the law as set out in the Code, § 37-116, that “Notice sufficient to excite attention and put a party on inquiry shall be notice of everything to which it is afterwards found such inquiry might have led. Ignorance of a fact, duo to negligence, shall be equivalent to knowledge, in fixing the rights of the parties.”

2. Tlie evidence was' sufficient to authorize the verdiet, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., who dissents, and Bech, P. J., and Bell, J., ahsent because of illness. Edwards & Edwards, for plaintiff. Walter Matthews, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E. 727, 184 Ga. 704, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-davis-ga-1937.