Jonas & Co. v. Tinsley

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jonas & Co. v. Tinsley

185 S.E. 291, 182 Ga. 298, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 31, 1936

DocketNo. 10915

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.E. 291 (Jonas & Co. v. Tinsley) 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

Jonas & Co. v. Tinsley, 185 S.E. 291, 182 Ga. 298, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 337 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

1. The sale of the realty in pursuance of the powers expressed in the security deed was not void for any reason assigned.

2. The evidence authorized the finding of the judge, to whom the case was submitted for decision without a jury, in favor of the intervenors. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Wright & Covington, and David J. Meyerhardt, for plaintiffs. J. Q. B. Erwin and Maddox, Matthews Oioens, for defendants.

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

Atkinson, Justice.

1. The sale of the realty in pursuance of the powers expressed in the security deed was not void for any reason assigned.

2. The evidence authorized the finding of the judge, to whom the case was submitted for decision without a jury, in favor of the intervenors. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Wright & Covington, and David J. Meyerhardt, for plaintiffs. J. Q. B. Erwin and Maddox, Matthews Oioens, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 291, 182 Ga. 298, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonas-co-v-tinsley-ga-1936.