Rogers v. Hardin
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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.