Smart v. Sunday

178 S.E. 411, 50 Ga. App. 458, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 174
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 31, 1935·No. 24260·Published

Opinion

Bkoyles, C. J.

This is an action in trover, and upon the trial the evidence upon the question of title to the property involved was in acute conflict, and that question should have been submitted to the jury. Therefore the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. The case of Jeems v. Lewis, 13 Ga. App. 456 (79 S. E. 235), cited by counsel for the defendant in error, is distinguished by its facts from this case. It appears, however, from the record, that the plaintiff still owes a balance of $73.64, a.nd interest thereon, on the purchase-price of the property. It is therefore directed that on the next trial the plaintiff make, in open court, a tender of that amount. See, in this connection, Bourquin v. Bourquin, 120 Ga. 115 (7), 120 (47 S. E. 639).

Judgment reversed, with direction.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concw.

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

Smart v. Sunday, 178 S.E. 411, 50 Ga. App. 458, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

178 S.E. 411 (Smart v. Sunday) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bourquin v. Bourquin
47 S.E. 639 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Jeems v. Lewis
79 S.E. 235 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)