Smith v. Brown & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Brown & Co.

85 S.E. 950, 16 Ga. App. 608, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 152

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 29, 1915·No. 6198·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury’s finding that credit for the goods included in the account sued on was extended by the plaintiff to the defendant (a married woman) in her individual capacity, and that she was liable for the same. See Connerat v. Goldsmith, 6 Ga. 14; Mitchell v. Treanor, 11 Ga. 324 (3, 4), 326 (56 Am. D. 421); Schofield v. Jones, 85 Ga. 816, 824 (11 S. E. 1032); Goodson v. Powell, 9 Ga. App. 497 (71 S. E. 765); Reynolds v. Starks, ante, 606 (85 S. E. 950).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict. There was no material error of law; and the judgment of the appellate division of the municipal court, refusing a new trial, is Affirmed.

Russell, G. J., dissents.

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

Broyles, J.

1. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury’s finding that credit for the goods included in the account sued on was extended by the plaintiff to the defendant (a married woman) in her individual capacity, and that she was liable for the same. See Connerat v. Goldsmith, 6 Ga. 14; Mitchell v. Treanor, 11 Ga. 324 (3, 4), 326 (56 Am. D. 421); Schofield v. Jones, 85 Ga. 816, 824 (11 S. E. 1032); Goodson v. Powell, 9 Ga. App. 497 (71 S. E. 765); Reynolds v. Starks, ante, 606 (85 S. E. 950).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict. There was no material error of law; and the judgment of the appellate division of the municipal court, refusing a new trial, is Affirmed.

Russell, G. J., dissents.

Smith v. Brown & Co., 85 S.E. 950, 16 Ga. App. 608, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 152 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

85 S.E. 950 (Smith v. Brown & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related