Macon & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Lane

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Macon & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Lane

65 S.E. 360, 6 Ga. App. 549, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 377

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1909

Docket1924

StatusPublished

This text of 65 S.E. 360 (Macon & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Lane) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 360, 6 Ga. App. 549, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macon-birmingham-railway-co-v-lane-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack