Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Austin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Austin

103 S.E. 729, 25 Ga. App. 476, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 17

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1920

Docket11524

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.E. 729 (Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Austin) 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

Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Austin, 103 S.E. 729, 25 Ga. App. 476, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 17 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note, and the defendant pleaded that the note was given to suppress a criminal prosecution against one Hudson, an employee in the plaintiff’s office, who was alleged to be short in his accounts; and, further, that it was given with the express understanding that Hudson would be retained in the employ of the plaintiff, and that a certain sum would be deducted monthly from his salary and applied to the note, until payment of the note in full, but that immediately after the note was given he was peremptorily discharged from the plaintiff’s employment. The evidence for the plaintiff, if believed by the jury, would have authorized a verdict for it, and the evidence for the defendant would have authorized a verdict for him. The jury believed the defendant’s side of the case and found a verdict in accordance therewith. This verdict has the approval of the trial judge. The charge of the court was full and fair and submitted clearly the issues raised by the pleadings, and is not subject to the criticisms urged. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial. See McConnell v. Cherokee National Bank, 18 Ga. App. 52 (88 S. E. 824), and cases cited: Jones v. Dannenburg, 112 Ga. 426 (37 S. E. 729, 52 L. R. A. 271); Wilson v. Carter, 4 Ga. App. 349 (61 S. E. 494).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note, and the defendant pleaded that the note was given to suppress a criminal prosecution against one Hudson, an employee in the plaintiff’s office, who was alleged to be short in his accounts; and, further, that it was given with the express understanding that Hudson would be retained in the employ of the plaintiff, and that a certain sum would be deducted monthly from his salary and applied to the note, until payment of the note in full, but that immediately after the note was given he was peremptorily discharged from the plaintiff’s employment. The evidence for the plaintiff, if believed by the jury, would have authorized a verdict for it, and the evidence for the defendant would have authorized a verdict for him. The jury believed the defendant’s side of the case and found a verdict in accordance therewith. This verdict has the approval of the trial judge. The charge of the court was full and fair and submitted clearly the issues raised by the pleadings, and is not subject to the criticisms urged. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial. See McConnell v. Cherokee National Bank, 18 Ga. App. 52 (88 S. E. 824), and cases cited: Jones v. Dannenburg, 112 Ga. 426 (37 S. E. 729, 52 L. R. A. 271); Wilson v. Carter, 4 Ga. App. 349 (61 S. E. 494).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 729, 25 Ga. App. 476, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittsburg-plate-glass-co-v-austin-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack