Lovejoy v. Lamar

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lovejoy v. Lamar

103 S.E. 471, 25 Ga. App. 414, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 846

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 16, 1920

Docket11242

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.E. 471 (Lovejoy v. Lamar) 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

Lovejoy v. Lamar, 103 S.E. 471, 25 Ga. App. 414, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. When this case was first before .this court (20 Ga. App. 499, 93 S. E. 153) the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded with direction that “ the case be recommitted to the auditor, in order that he may return a specific finding upon the issue of ratification, as made by the pleadings and evidence.” (Italics ours.) After this ruling, and when the case was again reached in the superior court, the judge by order referred the case to the auditor, “with direction that the said auditor, from the pleadings, testimony already introduced, and the record in said case, amend his findings and clearly show in his said findings whether or not the said Mrs. Cornelia Lamar at any time ratified the making of the loan of her funds to the Lovejoy Company by said defendant.” To this order counsel for defendant excepted, and “assigns the same as error, and says that the court erred in limiting the re-referring or recommittment aforesaid, but should have, by appropriate order, recommitted the [415]*415case generally to the auditor.” There is no merit in this exception, for the order re-referring the case was in complete accord with the direction given by this court referred to above.

2. Upon the hearing of the case after the recommitment the auditor found as follows: “I find that the plaintiff, Mrs. Cornelia Lamar, never at any time ratified the lending of her funds to the Lovejoy Company by defendant, T. E. Lovejoy.” To this finding the defendant filed exceptions of fact, and the issue thus raised was submitted to a jury, which sustained the finding of the auditor. This court cannot say, as a matter of law, that there is no evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment refusing a new trial is Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J. and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. When this case was first before .this court (20 Ga. App. 499, 93 S. E. 153) the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded with direction that “ the case be recommitted to the auditor, in order that he may return a specific finding upon the issue of ratification, as made by the pleadings and evidence.” (Italics ours.) After this ruling, and when the case was again reached in the superior court, the judge by order referred the case to the auditor, “with direction that the said auditor, from the pleadings, testimony already introduced, and the record in said case, amend his findings and clearly show in his said findings whether or not the said Mrs. Cornelia Lamar at any time ratified the making of the loan of her funds to the Lovejoy Company by said defendant.” To this order counsel for defendant excepted, and “assigns the same as error, and says that the court erred in limiting the re-referring or recommittment aforesaid, but should have, by appropriate order, recommitted the [415]*415case generally to the auditor.” There is no merit in this exception, for the order re-referring the case was in complete accord with the direction given by this court referred to above.

2. Upon the hearing of the case after the recommitment the auditor found as follows: “I find that the plaintiff, Mrs. Cornelia Lamar, never at any time ratified the lending of her funds to the Lovejoy Company by defendant, T. E. Lovejoy.” To this finding the defendant filed exceptions of fact, and the issue thus raised was submitted to a jury, which sustained the finding of the auditor. This court cannot say, as a matter of law, that there is no evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment refusing a new trial is Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J. and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 471, 25 Ga. App. 414, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovejoy-v-lamar-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack