Newell & McHugh v. Smith

23 Ga. 170
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1857·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

We are authorized to infer from the testimony that the plaintiffs in error, were partners in a tannery. It is in proof that the negro of the defendant Smith, and for whose hire the note was given was employed in the firm business. That being so, the plea of non est factum, is fully ^met and overcome by the evidence; and the Court below was right in refusing to charge to the contrary. We do not feel warranted in disturbing the verdict, because contraiy to the evidence. On the contrary, the proof is all on that side.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Newell & McHugh v. Smith, 23 Ga. 170 (Ga. 1857).

23 Ga. 170 (Newell & McHugh v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ewing v. Wilson & Howell
63 Tex. 88 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)