Jackson Banking Co. v. Mays

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jackson Banking Co. v. Mays

156 S.E. 622, 171 Ga. 685, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 441

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1931

DocketNo. 7642

StatusPublished

This text of 156 S.E. 622 (Jackson Banking Co. v. Mays) 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

Jackson Banking Co. v. Mays, 156 S.E. 622, 171 Ga. 685, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 441 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

This was an equitable suit for injunction and for cancellation-of certain deeds, four in number, all executed by the same party, one of the defendants, to four other parties, named defendants, which petitioners allege were without consideration and had been executed for the purpose of delaying and hindering creditors. After evidence submitted in the case, the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants, and the jury in accordance with the direction of the court returned a verdict in favor of each of the defendants and sustained each of the deeds attacked. Held, that under the evidence the case should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions by the court, and it was error to direct a verdict.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

This was an equitable suit for injunction and for cancellation-of certain deeds, four in number, all executed by the same party, one of the defendants, to four other parties, named defendants, which petitioners allege were without consideration and had been executed for the purpose of delaying and hindering creditors. After evidence submitted in the case, the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants, and the jury in accordance with the direction of the court returned a verdict in favor of each of the defendants and sustained each of the deeds attacked. Held, that under the evidence the case should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions by the court, and it was error to direct a verdict.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 622, 171 Ga. 685, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-banking-co-v-mays-ga-1931.