Spivey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Spivey v. State

9 S.E.2d 716, 62 Ga. App. 683, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 403

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1940

Docket28224.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 S.E.2d 716 (Spivey v. State) 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

Spivey v. State, 9 S.E.2d 716, 62 Ga. App. 683, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 403 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. This is the second appearance of this case in this, court. In Spivey v. State, 59 Ga. App. 380 (1 S. E. 2d, 60), a statement of the facts is set forth. The defendant bought and received some cattle from the prosecutor. They were in two lots, bought at different times on the same day. The defendant gave two checks for the purchase-price, stating that he had made arrangements for them, and that they would be paid on presentation. One of the checks was paid, and the other was not. The prosecutor suffered a loss. The jury rejected the defendant’s contention as to an extension of credit. They were authorized to find that the prosecutor was cheated and defrauded. We think the evidence amply supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. This is the second appearance of this case in this, court. In Spivey v. State, 59 Ga. App. 380 (1 S. E. 2d, 60), a statement of the facts is set forth. The defendant bought and received some cattle from the prosecutor. They were in two lots, bought at different times on the same day. The defendant gave two checks for the purchase-price, stating that he had made arrangements for them, and that they would be paid on presentation. One of the checks was paid, and the other was not. The prosecutor suffered a loss. The jury rejected the defendant’s contention as to an extension of credit. They were authorized to find that the prosecutor was cheated and defrauded. We think the evidence amply supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.E.2d 716, 62 Ga. App. 683, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spivey-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack