Smith v. Renfroe

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Renfroe

153 S.E. 84, 41 Ga. App. 393, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 622

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 21, 1930

Docket19980

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E. 84 (Smith v. Renfroe) 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

Smith v. Renfroe, 153 S.E. 84, 41 Ga. App. 393, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 622 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

The evidence in the instant suit in trover authorized the jury to find that the horse which was the subject-matter of the litigation was sold by the defendant to the plaintiff in consideration of the plaintiff’s having paid off certain notes which she had signed as security for the defendant, and that the defendant agreed to keep the horse for the plaintiff until he moved from plaintiff’s premises, and then surrender it to plaintiff, but, instead of doing so, carried it away with him. The jury were further authorized to find, from testimony of the plaintiff, that the horse was worth $150 at the time of its conversion. This is true despite the contrary testimony of plaintiff’s husband, to the effect that at the time of the trial the horse was not worth more than $50 or $55. Accordingly, it can not be said, as a matter of law, that the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, who elected to take a money verdict, in the amount of $132.09, was not authorized, and since no error of law is complained of, the judgment of the trial court overruling the motion for a new trial must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

The evidence in the instant suit in trover authorized the jury to find that the horse which was the subject-matter of the litigation was sold by the defendant to the plaintiff in consideration of the plaintiff’s having paid off certain notes which she had signed as security for the defendant, and that the defendant agreed to keep the horse for the plaintiff until he moved from plaintiff’s premises, and then surrender it to plaintiff, but, instead of doing so, carried it away with him. The jury were further authorized to find, from testimony of the plaintiff, that the horse was worth $150 at the time of its conversion. This is true despite the contrary testimony of plaintiff’s husband, to the effect that at the time of the trial the horse was not worth more than $50 or $55. Accordingly, it can not be said, as a matter of law, that the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, who elected to take a money verdict, in the amount of $132.09, was not authorized, and since no error of law is complained of, the judgment of the trial court overruling the motion for a new trial must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 84, 41 Ga. App. 393, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-renfroe-gactapp-1930.