Marshall v. Woodbury Banking Co.
68 S.E. 957, 8 Ga. App. 221, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 111
Opinion
A verdict for tlie plaintiff was not demanded by tlie evidence, and the court erred in directing- tlie verdict. In any case where the evidence may he subject to more than one construction, or where more than one inference may be drawn, even from undisputed facts, the duty of solving the mystery should! be placed upon the jury.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Marshall v. Woodbury Banking Co., 68 S.E. 957, 8 Ga. App. 221, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).
68 S.E. 957 (Marshall v. Woodbury Banking Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Benson v. Action Electric Co.
206 S.E.2d 647 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Owens v. Georgia Power Company
190 S.E.2d 897 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1972)
Georgia Power Company v. Owens
186 S.E.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
McCarty v. National Life & Accident Insurance
129 S.E.2d 408 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Weathers v. Modern Masonry Materials, Inc.
125 S.E.2d 532 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Northwestern University v. Crisp
88 S.E.2d 26 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Reaves v. Columbus Electric & Power Co.
122 S.E. 824 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Sherman v. Stephens
118 S.E. 567 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)