Scott v. Brown

Supreme Court of Georgia

Scott v. Brown

56 S.E. 130, 127 Ga. 88, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 743

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 S.E. 130 (Scott v. Brown) 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

Scott v. Brown, 56 S.E. 130, 127 Ga. 88, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 743 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note, alleged to be due and unpaid, where the defendant admitted its execution and that the plaintiff was the holder thereof, it is not cause for a new trial that the court charged the jury that “if he does not overcome the allegations in the petition, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the face of the note,” together with interest and attorney’s fees, instead of instructing the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover unless the defendant proved his plea of payment.

2. A charge that “By preponderance of evidence is meant that superior weight of evidence upon the issues involved, which, while it may not be sufficient to convince the mind beyond a reasonable doubt, is yet sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than to the other,” is a substantial definition of the term “preponderance of evidence,” as defined in the Civil Code, §5145.

3. The charge of the court on the subject of the application of payments made by the defendant was not open to the criticism that it was indefinite and uncertain and not authorized by the evidence; and the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was warranted.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Evans, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note, alleged to be due and unpaid, where the defendant admitted its execution and that the plaintiff was the holder thereof, it is not cause for a new trial that the court charged the jury that “if he does not overcome the allegations in the petition, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the face of the note,” together with interest and attorney’s fees, instead of instructing the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover unless the defendant proved his plea of payment.

2. A charge that “By preponderance of evidence is meant that superior weight of evidence upon the issues involved, which, while it may not be sufficient to convince the mind beyond a reasonable doubt, is yet sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than to the other,” is a substantial definition of the term “preponderance of evidence,” as defined in the Civil Code, §5145.

3. The charge of the court on the subject of the application of payments made by the defendant was not open to the criticism that it was indefinite and uncertain and not authorized by the evidence; and the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was warranted.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 S.E. 130, 127 Ga. 88, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-brown-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack