Silvey & Co. v. Chamblee

Supreme Court of Georgia

Silvey & Co. v. Chamblee

12 S.E. 809, 86 Ga. 333, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 245

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 S.E. 809 (Silvey & Co. v. Chamblee) 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

Silvey & Co. v. Chamblee, 12 S.E. 809, 86 Ga. 333, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 245 (Ga. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Blandeord, Justice.

A motion for a new trial was made in this case upon [337]*337the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the: evidence, which the court overruled, and the plaintiffs in error excepted. "We are of the opinion that a new trial should have been granted upon the grounds stated, in the motion. The evidence shows very plainly that the title to the property levied on was in the husband' of the claimant (who is the defendant in error), that she recognized it by taking a mortgage to the property from her husband to herself, which was foreclosed; and although she alleges that this was done without her knowledge or consent, it is not shown that the attorney who acted for her was not in fact her attorney; so> therefore, what he knew the law charged her with knowing. We think the court did wrong to refuse to grant a new trial in this case, and the judgment is therefore Reversed.

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

Blandeord, Justice.

A motion for a new trial was made in this case upon [337]*337the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the: evidence, which the court overruled, and the plaintiffs in error excepted. "We are of the opinion that a new trial should have been granted upon the grounds stated, in the motion. The evidence shows very plainly that the title to the property levied on was in the husband' of the claimant (who is the defendant in error), that she recognized it by taking a mortgage to the property from her husband to herself, which was foreclosed; and although she alleges that this was done without her knowledge or consent, it is not shown that the attorney who acted for her was not in fact her attorney; so> therefore, what he knew the law charged her with knowing. We think the court did wrong to refuse to grant a new trial in this case, and the judgment is therefore Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.E. 809, 86 Ga. 333, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silvey-co-v-chamblee-ga-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack