Hindsman v. Morris

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hindsman v. Morris

174 S.E. 639, 49 Ga. App. 199, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 327

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1934

Docket23650

StatusPublished

This text of 174 S.E. 639 (Hindsman v. Morris) 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

Hindsman v. Morris, 174 S.E. 639, 49 Ga. App. 199, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

In this suit against a married woman, upon an open account secured by a deed to land, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. The motion for a new trial is limited to the general grounds. The evidence amply authorized the verdict against the defendant upon her defenses that the indebtedness was that of her husband and son, that when she signed the deed she was too ill to understand the nature of the transaction, and that she thought she was signing a deed to 57 instead of 107 acres as covered by the instrument. The plaintiff’s witnesses testified, that the account was correct and was contracted exclusively in the name and upon the credit of the defendant; that she authorized the deliveries of goods made to her husband and son, who were working her farm for her, upon her own account;- that she fully understood what she was doing when she signed the deed, and, although she did not read it over, “she looked at the deed, got her' glasses, then signed it;” that she was of sound mind; and that no fraud or artifice to prevent her from reading the paper was practiced upon her. See Sloan v. Farmers Bank, 20 Ga. App. 123, 125 (92 S. E. 893); Gossett v. Wilder, 46 Ga. App. 651 (7), 653 (168 S. E. 903); Lee v. Loveland, 43 Ga. App. 5 (157 S. E. 707); Hester v. Dreyer, 19 Ga. App. 816 (92 S. E. 299); Wimpee v. McHenry, 18 Ga. App. 475 (89 S. E. 607); Tuggle v. Duke, 42 Ga. App. 634 (157 S. E. 224); Civil Code (1910), § 3007.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

In this suit against a married woman, upon an open account secured by a deed to land, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. The motion for a new trial is limited to the general grounds. The evidence amply authorized the verdict against the defendant upon her defenses that the indebtedness was that of her husband and son, that when she signed the deed she was too ill to understand the nature of the transaction, and that she thought she was signing a deed to 57 instead of 107 acres as covered by the instrument. The plaintiff’s witnesses testified, that the account was correct and was contracted exclusively in the name and upon the credit of the defendant; that she authorized the deliveries of goods made to her husband and son, who were working her farm for her, upon her own account;- that she fully understood what she was doing when she signed the deed, and, although she did not read it over, “she looked at the deed, got her' glasses, then signed it;” that she was of sound mind; and that no fraud or artifice to prevent her from reading the paper was practiced upon her. See Sloan v. Farmers Bank, 20 Ga. App. 123, 125 (92 S. E. 893); Gossett v. Wilder, 46 Ga. App. 651 (7), 653 (168 S. E. 903); Lee v. Loveland, 43 Ga. App. 5 (157 S. E. 707); Hester v. Dreyer, 19 Ga. App. 816 (92 S. E. 299); Wimpee v. McHenry, 18 Ga. App. 475 (89 S. E. 607); Tuggle v. Duke, 42 Ga. App. 634 (157 S. E. 224); Civil Code (1910), § 3007.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E. 639, 49 Ga. App. 199, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hindsman-v-morris-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack