Newell & McHugh v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Newell & McHugh v. Smith

23 Ga. 170

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 Ga. 170 (Newell & McHugh v. Smith) 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.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Ga. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newell-mchugh-v-smith-ga-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack