Napier v. Bigham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Napier v. Bigham

113 S.E. 51, 28 Ga. App. 796, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 870

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 24, 1922

Docket12876

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.E. 51 (Napier v. Bigham) 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

Napier v. Bigham, 113 S.E. 51, 28 Ga. App. 796, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 870 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. This being a suit in trover to recover a number of bales of cotton alleged to have been converted by the defendant, to the damage of the plaintiff, and there being evidence that some of the cotton had been sold by the defendant prior to a demand from t.he plaintiff', and that the remainder of the cotton had not prior to this time been sold, a charge by the court, in which the jury were instructed as to the rule of law applicable if they believed that a part of the cotton had been sold as claimed, and that the other part had not been sold as [797]*797claimed, was not subject to the objection that it was calculated to confuse the jury because that it was not adjusted to the evidence.

Decided July 24, 1922.

Trover; from Monroe superior court — Judge Searcy. July 16, 1921'.

R. L. Berner, G. O. Persons, for plaintiffs in error. Willingham & Willingham, Reagan & Reagan, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff.

■Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., concurs.

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

Stephens, J.

1. This being a suit in trover to recover a number of bales of cotton alleged to have been converted by the defendant, to the damage of the plaintiff, and there being evidence that some of the cotton had been sold by the defendant prior to a demand from t.he plaintiff', and that the remainder of the cotton had not prior to this time been sold, a charge by the court, in which the jury were instructed as to the rule of law applicable if they believed that a part of the cotton had been sold as claimed, and that the other part had not been sold as [797]*797claimed, was not subject to the objection that it was calculated to confuse the jury because that it was not adjusted to the evidence.

Decided July 24, 1922.

Trover; from Monroe superior court — Judge Searcy. July 16, 1921'.

R. L. Berner, G. O. Persons, for plaintiffs in error. Willingham & Willingham, Reagan & Reagan, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff.

■Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 51, 28 Ga. App. 796, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napier-v-bigham-gactapp-1922.