Sewell v. Glore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sewell v. Glore

74 S.E. 1039, 11 Ga. App. 158, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 306

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1912

Docket3909

StatusPublished

This text of 74 S.E. 1039 (Sewell v. Glore) 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

Sewell v. Glore, 74 S.E. 1039, 11 Ga. App. 158, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. That "a woman, without a subpoena, voluntarily attended court from outside the county in which the case was tried, and testified for the plaintiff, was only a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining the weight of her testimony, and they were authorized to believe her notwithstanding her willingness to testify.

2. No error of law is complained of, and the only question in the case was the issue of fact, as to whether the broker had procured a purchaser for the real estate listed with him for sale, who was ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offered to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner;' and on this issue the evidence fully supports the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

Mozley & Moss, for plaintiffs in error. Etheridge & Etheridge, contra.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. That "a woman, without a subpoena, voluntarily attended court from outside the county in which the case was tried, and testified for the plaintiff, was only a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining the weight of her testimony, and they were authorized to believe her notwithstanding her willingness to testify.

2. No error of law is complained of, and the only question in the case was the issue of fact, as to whether the broker had procured a purchaser for the real estate listed with him for sale, who was ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offered to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner;' and on this issue the evidence fully supports the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

Mozley & Moss, for plaintiffs in error. Etheridge & Etheridge, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 1039, 11 Ga. App. 158, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sewell-v-glore-gactapp-1912.