Rogers v. Hardin

140 S.E. 399, 37 Ga. App. 407, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 720
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 18, 1927
Docket18074
StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 399 (Rogers v. Hardin) 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
Rogers v. Hardin, 140 S.E. 399, 37 Ga. App. 407, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 720 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Bell, J.

On the trial of a claim case, where the issue is the bona fides of transactions between the defendant in execution and the claimant, and where there are circumstances which, if not satisfactorily explained, may be regarded, as badges of fraud, the findings of the jury on the issue can not be disturbed by this court on the general grounds only. Dumas v. Barnesville Bank, 36 Ga. App. 810, 811 (138 S. E. 243). The testimony of the claimant, having disclosed circumstances which the jury were authorized to regard as badges of fraud, did not demand a verdict in his favor. Compare Redd v. Lathem, 32 Ga. App. 214 (123 S. E. 175); Blount v. Dunlap, 34 Ga. App. 666 (4) (130 S. E. 693); Kelly v. Gates, 36 Ga. App. 763 (138 S. E. 280).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Related

Redd & Co. v. Lathem & Sons
123 S.E. 175 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Blount v. Dunlap
130 S.E. 693 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Kelly v. Cates
138 S.E. 280 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Dumas v. Barnesville Bank
138 S.E. 243 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 S.E. 399, 37 Ga. App. 407, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-hardin-gactapp-1927.