McDonald v. Jenkins

123 S.E. 906, 32 Ga. App. 477, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 476
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 14, 1924
Docket15152
StatusPublished

This text of 123 S.E. 906 (McDonald v. Jenkins) 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
McDonald v. Jenkins, 123 S.E. 906, 32 Ga. App. 477, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 476 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being a suit against the maker upon a promissory note, the sole defense to which was that the instrument had been intentionally altered in a material manner by a person claiming a benefit under it, with the intention to defraud the defendant, and there being evidence in behalf of the plaintiff to the. effect that the instrument had not been altered, a verdict finding for the plaintiff was authorized. Since the only grounds for reversal appearing of record are the general grounds, the trial judge did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 S.E. 906, 32 Ga. App. 477, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-jenkins-gactapp-1924.