Silvey & Co. v. Chamblee

12 S.E. 809, 86 Ga. 333, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 245
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 20, 1890·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Blandeord, Justice.

A motion for a new trial was made in this case upon [337] the 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

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

12 S.E. 809 (Silvey & Co. v. Chamblee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weeks v. Pollard
16 S.E.2d 225 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Hardeman v. Ellis
135 S.E. 195 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Bell v. Redd
65 S.E. 90 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
In re Plankinton Bank
58 N.W. 784 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1894)