Rogers v. Hardin

140 S.E. 399, 37 Ga. App. 407, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 720
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 18, 1927·No. 18074·Published

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

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

140 S.E. 399 (Rogers v. Hardin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)