O'Neill v. Self

Court of Appeals of Georgia

O'Neill v. Self

161 S.E. 277, 44 Ga. App. 322, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 705

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1931

Docket21323

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 S.E. 277 (O'Neill v. Self) 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

O'Neill v. Self, 161 S.E. 277, 44 Ga. App. 322, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

This being a suit for damages for the alleged conversion of certain cotton, and there being, under the pleadings and the evidence, an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had agreed that the cotton might be taken and disposed of as was done by the defendants, one witness having testified positively to an admission by the plaintiff that he made such an agreement, it was error as against the defendants for the court to charge the jury that the evidence presented no issue- as to whether such an agreement had been entered into by the parties, and, the jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenloins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

This being a suit for damages for the alleged conversion of certain cotton, and there being, under the pleadings and the evidence, an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had agreed that the cotton might be taken and disposed of as was done by the defendants, one witness having testified positively to an admission by the plaintiff that he made such an agreement, it was error as against the defendants for the court to charge the jury that the evidence presented no issue- as to whether such an agreement had been entered into by the parties, and, the jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenloins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 277, 44 Ga. App. 322, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-self-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack