Stanford v. Calhoun

Supreme Court of Georgia

Stanford v. Calhoun

127 S.E. 138, 159 Ga. 867, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 72

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 25, 1925

DocketNo. 4381

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.E. 138 (Stanford v. Calhoun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanford v. Calhoun, 127 S.E. 138, 159 Ga. 867, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 72 (Ga. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The abbreviated headnote, in spite of the paucity of words, will be perfectly plain, if not indeed pronouncedly perspicuous, when it is read in connection with the statement of facts. In the course of the trial, all contest, except as to certain personal property, was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. The sole question was whether these specific articles belonged to John C. Calhoun, the deceased, who had by will devised them in remainder to the defendant, or were the property of Mrs. Calhoun, whose estate was represented by Stanford, as administrator. The evidence. authorized the finding returned by the jury upon that issue. Exceptions to the admission of evidence, where such are properly made, are [871]*871■without merit. The exception to the charge is without merit. The verdict was approved by the trial court. We have no legal reason for disturbing his discretion in refusing another trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Russell, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The abbreviated headnote, in spite of the paucity of words, will be perfectly plain, if not indeed pronouncedly perspicuous, when it is read in connection with the statement of facts. In the course of the trial, all contest, except as to certain personal property, was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. The sole question was whether these specific articles belonged to John C. Calhoun, the deceased, who had by will devised them in remainder to the defendant, or were the property of Mrs. Calhoun, whose estate was represented by Stanford, as administrator. The evidence. authorized the finding returned by the jury upon that issue. Exceptions to the admission of evidence, where such are properly made, are [871]*871■without merit. The exception to the charge is without merit. The verdict was approved by the trial court. We have no legal reason for disturbing his discretion in refusing another trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 138, 159 Ga. 867, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-calhoun-ga-1925.