Macon & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Lane

65 S.E. 360, 6 Ga. App. 549, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 377
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 31, 1909·No. 1924·Published

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. The evidence, though circumstantial in some respects, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the defendant received the money from the plaintiff, a married woman, in payment of the debt of her husband, either with actual knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that it was hers. The case is therefore controlled by Third National Bank v. Poe, 5 Ga. App. 114 (62 S. E. 826). See also Humphrey v. Copeland, 54 Ga. 543.

2. In a ease like that indicated in the foregoing headnote, it is relevant for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s agents or officers in charge of the transaction had been notified, shortly prior to the time that the money was paid over, that the husband did not have the money with which to pay the debt, and that if it was paid it would have to be paid with the wife’s money. Judgment affirmed.

Hill, C. J., disqualified.

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

Macon & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Lane, 65 S.E. 360, 6 Ga. App. 549, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

65 S.E. 360 (Macon & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Humphrey v. Copeland
54 Ga. 543 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1875)
Third National Bank v. Poe
62 S.E. 826 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)