McNabb v. Brice
This text of 48 S.E. 199 (McNabb v. Brice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This being an attachment for the purchase-money of a mule, and it affirmatively appearing that the mule was not in the possession of the debtor at the time the attachment was levied, but that he had sold the mule and been paid, in full for it, and it not appearing that the mule was held for the benefit of the defendant or in fraud of the rights of the plaintiff, a verdict for the defendant was demanded ; and regardless of inaccuracies in the charge of the court, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
48 S.E. 199, 120 Ga. 747, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnabb-v-brice-ga-1904.