Roach v. Sulter

54 Ga. 458
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 54 Ga. 458 (Roach v. Sulter) 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
Roach v. Sulter, 54 Ga. 458 (Ga. 1875).

Opinion

McCay, Judge.

1. The constitution gives a writ of error to this court from the decisions of the city court, and there is, also, by the constitution, a certiorari allowed to issue by the judge of the superior court to correct the errors of all inferior judicatures. On the writ of error filed to this court the plaintiff’s case was dismissed. Until that dismissal was had the case was not finally disposed of by the city court. Its judgment was suspended, superseded by the writ of error. Under the decision of this court, in 22 Georgia, 359, the party had his three months from the dismissal to apply for his new proceeding.

2. Biit we think the court was right in refusing the certiorari on the merits. It is true that the weight of evidence was in favor of the idea that this was a mortgage and not a sale. But the papers and the evidence of the plaintiff were on the side óf a sale, and it was competent for the jury, under the evidence, so to find. Under this view of it, is not the verdict sustainable by the evidence ? The wagons and the harness seem to be still intact, and even the defendant below admits that it was the interest of both parties that the horses bought should take the place of the mules. This would leave in the possession of the defendant in the action in the city court a plenty of property to justify the verdict. A money verdict was competent, in the election of the plaintiff, under section 3564 of the Code. On the whole, as substantial justice is done, as the certiorari turns upon a purely technical idea, and the verdict is for about what the defendant himself admits he is due the other, we think the verdict ought to stand.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Richardson v. Rector
213 S.E.2d 488 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Mayor &C. of Union Point v. Jones
78 S.E.2d 348 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Beard v. State
32 S.E.2d 121 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Gavant v. Berger
181 S.E. 210 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Taylor v. Georgia Power Co.
161 S.E. 669 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Lovelace
101 S.E. 718 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Freeman
95 S.E. 740 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Young v. Broyles
85 S.E. 366 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Moody v. State
81 S.E. 588 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Randolph
55 S.E. 47 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Winn v. State
55 S.E. 178 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Crosson v. State
52 S.E. 880 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
White v. State
51 S.E. 505 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Archie v. State
25 S.E. 612 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 Ga. 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-sulter-ga-1875.