Lynn v. Love

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lynn v. Love

135 S.E. 314, 163 Ga. 32, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 14, 1926

DocketNo. 5292

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 314 (Lynn v. Love) 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

Lynn v. Love, 135 S.E. 314, 163 Ga. 32, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 12 (Ga. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. The object of the suit was to cancel a deed executed by the petitioner, on the ground of mental incapacity and undue influence exercised by the defendant. The court, did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

2. Under the pleadings and the evidence, the grounds of the motion for [33]*33a new trial complaining of portions of the court’s instructions, when considered in connection with the entire charge of the court, do not require the grant of a new trial. The mental incapacity of the plaintiff is shown by the great weight of the evidence. The same is true as to the lack of consideration for the deed, and the further fact that the terms of the deed were different from what was intended by both parties. In these circumstances, the judgment refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

No. 5292. October 14, 1926. E. E. Elders and J. T. Grice, for plaintiff in error. C. L. Cowart, contra.

3. The verdict is amply supported by evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. The object of the suit was to cancel a deed executed by the petitioner, on the ground of mental incapacity and undue influence exercised by the defendant. The court, did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

2. Under the pleadings and the evidence, the grounds of the motion for [33]*33a new trial complaining of portions of the court’s instructions, when considered in connection with the entire charge of the court, do not require the grant of a new trial. The mental incapacity of the plaintiff is shown by the great weight of the evidence. The same is true as to the lack of consideration for the deed, and the further fact that the terms of the deed were different from what was intended by both parties. In these circumstances, the judgment refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

No. 5292. October 14, 1926. E. E. Elders and J. T. Grice, for plaintiff in error. C. L. Cowart, contra.

3. The verdict is amply supported by evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 314, 163 Ga. 32, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynn-v-love-ga-1926.