Moore v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moore v. Smith

121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 491, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 3

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1924

Docket14779

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 136 (Moore v. Smith) 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

Moore v. Smith, 121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 491, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 3 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Where the defense to a suit is based solely upon partial failure of consideration, before a verdict can legally be rendered giving the defendant the benefit of that defense he must show the extent to which the consideration failed; the evidence must present sufficient data upon Which to base such a verdict. Hunnicutl Co. v. Kane, 21 Ga. App. 665 (94 S. E. 821). The evidence in the present case failing to disclose any specific damage to the defendant, who for several months before he made complaint used the automobile for which the notes sued on were given, there was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. B. Q. Jachson, for plaintiff in error. Horton Brothers, Anderson, Rountree & Crenshaw, contra.

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

Luke, J.

Where the defense to a suit is based solely upon partial failure of consideration, before a verdict can legally be rendered giving the defendant the benefit of that defense he must show the extent to which the consideration failed; the evidence must present sufficient data upon Which to base such a verdict. Hunnicutl Co. v. Kane, 21 Ga. App. 665 (94 S. E. 821). The evidence in the present case failing to disclose any specific damage to the defendant, who for several months before he made complaint used the automobile for which the notes sued on were given, there was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. B. Q. Jachson, for plaintiff in error. Horton Brothers, Anderson, Rountree & Crenshaw, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 491, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-smith-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack