Stahl v. Sommer

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stahl v. Sommer

66 S.E. 803, 7 Ga. App. 308, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 253

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 21, 1910·No. 2002·Published

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. In an action of trover to recover possession of a diaznozid ring, where the issue made by the evidence was whether the plaintiff had title to the ring, or had advanced to the defendant the money with which to purchase the ring, it was not error for the court to instruct the jury, in effect, that if they believed the latter to be the truth, the plaintiff’s remedy would be a suit for the mozzey advanced, azzd not a suit for the ring.

2. The evidezzce fully supports the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. In an action of trover to recover possession of a diaznozid ring, where the issue made by the evidence was whether the plaintiff had title to the ring, or had advanced to the defendant the money with which to purchase the ring, it was not error for the court to instruct the jury, in effect, that if they believed the latter to be the truth, the plaintiff’s remedy would be a suit for the mozzey advanced, azzd not a suit for the ring.

2. The evidezzce fully supports the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Stahl v. Sommer, 66 S.E. 803, 7 Ga. App. 308, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

66 S.E. 803 (Stahl v. Sommer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.