McCartney v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McCartney v. Wilson

141 S.E. 215, 37 Ga. App. 609, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 524

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 7, 1928

Docket18589

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.E. 215 (McCartney v. Wilson) 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

McCartney v. Wilson, 141 S.E. 215, 37 Ga. App. 609, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The question presented by this record is whether or not the judge of the superior court erred in reversing the judgment of the appellate division of the municipal court of Atlanta, and rendering a final judgment for Mrs. S. T. Wilson in her suit on a note against G. L. McCartney.

The sustaining of the certiorari was not error. However, there 'being some conflict in the evidence as to whether or n'ot the money sued for was a gift and not a loan, the court erred in rendering a final judgment, and the ease should be remitted to the municipal court of Atlanta for another hearing. In view of the foregoing, it would answer no good purpose to review the evidence as to the other defenses interposed.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The question presented by this record is whether or not the judge of the superior court erred in reversing the judgment of the appellate division of the municipal court of Atlanta, and rendering a final judgment for Mrs. S. T. Wilson in her suit on a note against G. L. McCartney.

The sustaining of the certiorari was not error. However, there 'being some conflict in the evidence as to whether or n'ot the money sued for was a gift and not a loan, the court erred in rendering a final judgment, and the ease should be remitted to the municipal court of Atlanta for another hearing. In view of the foregoing, it would answer no good purpose to review the evidence as to the other defenses interposed.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 215, 37 Ga. App. 609, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccartney-v-wilson-gactapp-1928.