Hurst v. Lane

31 S.E. 135, 105 Ga. 506, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 638
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 22, 1898·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

There being evidence to warrant a finding that the plaintiff below, in the capacity of a servant, rendered to her deceased uncle and to his wife services for which payment was contemplated, and that these services were not exclusively such as would be prompted by affection and a sense of duty, she was entitled to a recovery against his executors; and having, under the court’s direction, written off a portion of the verdict returned in her favor, the ■same, as thus amended, was not excessive in amount. See Murrell v. Studstill, 104 Ga. 604.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Hurst v. Lane, 31 S.E. 135, 105 Ga. 506, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 638 (Ga. 1898).

31 S.E. 135 (Hurst v. Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Freeman v. Phillips
218 S.E.2d 144 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Tatum v. Moss
198 S.E. 814 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Westbrook v. Saylors
193 S.E. 371 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Taber v. McGregor
234 S.W. 194 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
Bolling v. Bolling's Admr.
142 S.W. 387 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1912)
Phinazee v. Bunn
51 S.E. 300 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)