Hickson v. Maloof

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hickson v. Maloof

170 S.E. 389, 47 Ga. App. 320, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 390

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 4, 1933

Docket22937, 22940

StatusPublished

This text of 170 S.E. 389 (Hickson v. Maloof) 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

Hickson v. Maloof, 170 S.E. 389, 47 Ga. App. 320, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. This was a suit upon a promissory note given for the purchase-price of certain personal property. The defendant in her answer admitted a prima facie case in the plaintiff, .but alleged that, before this action was filed, the plaintiff had rescinded the sale of the personal property and had retaken possession of it. Upon the trial the defendant failed to support her plea. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence disclosed that there was no rescission of the contract of sale. There was no material issue of fact for the jury to pass upon, and the court did not err, for any reason assigned, in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

2. As the foregoing ruling controls the case, the question raised in the cross-bill of exceptions is not considered.

Judgment on ma/tn bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. This was a suit upon a promissory note given for the purchase-price of certain personal property. The defendant in her answer admitted a prima facie case in the plaintiff, .but alleged that, before this action was filed, the plaintiff had rescinded the sale of the personal property and had retaken possession of it. Upon the trial the defendant failed to support her plea. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence disclosed that there was no rescission of the contract of sale. There was no material issue of fact for the jury to pass upon, and the court did not err, for any reason assigned, in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

2. As the foregoing ruling controls the case, the question raised in the cross-bill of exceptions is not considered.

Judgment on ma/tn bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 S.E. 389, 47 Ga. App. 320, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickson-v-maloof-gactapp-1933.