Southwest Georgia Development Co. v. Griffin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southwest Georgia Development Co. v. Griffin

143 S.E. 784, 38 Ga. App. 276, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 190

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1928

Docket18430

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 784 (Southwest Georgia Development Co. v. Griffin) 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

Southwest Georgia Development Co. v. Griffin, 143 S.E. 784, 38 Ga. App. 276, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The jury having found in favor of the defendant generally, and having thus necessarily adjudged, as they were authorized to do, that the plaintiff took over the timber and resold it to a third person during the period that the lease to the defendant had been extended, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the agreed advance [277]*277payment as a penalty or forfeiture; nor, in view of such finding for the defendant, could the plaintiff have been harmed by any error in the charge of the court as to the measure of damages. Civil Code (1910), §§ 4390, 4391; Conant v. Jones, 120 Ga. 568 (12) (48 S. E. 234); Carstarphen v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 8 Ga. App. 162, 164 (68 S. E. 848); Sarman v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry. Co., 33 Ga. App. 315, 324 (125 S. E. 891).

Decided June 15, 1928. E. L. Smith, for plaintiff.

2. The court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. 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.

1. The jury having found in favor of the defendant generally, and having thus necessarily adjudged, as they were authorized to do, that the plaintiff took over the timber and resold it to a third person during the period that the lease to the defendant had been extended, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the agreed advance [277]*277payment as a penalty or forfeiture; nor, in view of such finding for the defendant, could the plaintiff have been harmed by any error in the charge of the court as to the measure of damages. Civil Code (1910), §§ 4390, 4391; Conant v. Jones, 120 Ga. 568 (12) (48 S. E. 234); Carstarphen v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 8 Ga. App. 162, 164 (68 S. E. 848); Sarman v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry. Co., 33 Ga. App. 315, 324 (125 S. E. 891).

Decided June 15, 1928. E. L. Smith, for plaintiff.

2. The court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 784, 38 Ga. App. 276, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwest-georgia-development-co-v-griffin-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack