Kimbrough v. Harwell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Kimbrough v. Harwell

122 S.E. 879, 158 Ga. 256, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 125

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 6, 1924

DocketNo. 4043

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.E. 879 (Kimbrough v. Harwell) 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

Kimbrough v. Harwell, 122 S.E. 879, 158 Ga. 256, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 125 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

This being an action for specific performance, in which a definite and specific contract is set up and sought to be enforced, and the proof submitted not clearly and satisfactorily establishing the contract alleged and sought to be enforced, and only tending to establish another and different contract, and there being no clear and satisfactory proof of any services rendered by the plaintiff to the intestate, the verdict of the jury finding in favor of the plaintiff and setting up the contract is contrary to law and evidence; and for this reason a new trial is granted.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., and Gilbert, J., dissenting. W. H. Fisher and J. G. Faust, for plaintiff in error. Miles W. Lewis and Noel P. Parle, contra.

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

Pee Curiam.

This being an action for specific performance, in which a definite and specific contract is set up and sought to be enforced, and the proof submitted not clearly and satisfactorily establishing the contract alleged and sought to be enforced, and only tending to establish another and different contract, and there being no clear and satisfactory proof of any services rendered by the plaintiff to the intestate, the verdict of the jury finding in favor of the plaintiff and setting up the contract is contrary to law and evidence; and for this reason a new trial is granted.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., and Gilbert, J., dissenting. W. H. Fisher and J. G. Faust, for plaintiff in error. Miles W. Lewis and Noel P. Parle, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 879, 158 Ga. 256, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimbrough-v-harwell-ga-1924.