Swatts v. Harrison

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Swatts v. Harrison

91 S.E. 337, 19 Ga. App. 217, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 67

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1917

Docket7602

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 337 (Swatts v. Harrison) 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

Swatts v. Harrison, 91 S.E. 337, 19 Ga. App. 217, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 67 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Gíeorge, J.

1. There was no error in allowing the case reopened for the introduction of further testimony after the argument was begun.

2. ' On the facts set forth in the petition for certiorari, the'verdict is not contrary to the evidence nor without evidence to support it, except as to $45 usury included therein. Indeed, the evidence clearly disclosed that the notes were given for a loan of money in one sum of $1,500, and the draft for the money was made payable to the order of the wife. It matters not that she indorsed the draft and delivered it to the husband; which fact may be inferred by his indorsement upon the draft. As was said by Bleckley, J., in the case of Boland v. Klink, 63 Ga. 448, “Generally, when a wife wants an agent to represent her in a business transaction, she will select her husband.” The case from which this language is quoted is in large measure controlling on the facts of this case. When the wife makes 'a purchase through her husband “it is the same as if she made it in person; and when the transaction creates a debt for property which is transferred or conveyed to her by the creditor, and she gives the required security in person, the debt is hers, not her husband’s, and the act of giving security binds her.” \

It does affirmatively appear, from the facts alleged in the petition, that the sum of $45, included in tlie three notes sued on, is usury. The judgment refusing sanction to the writ of certiorari must therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, C. J./and Luke, J., concur.

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

Gíeorge, J.

1. There was no error in allowing the case reopened for the introduction of further testimony after the argument was begun.

2. ' On the facts set forth in the petition for certiorari, the'verdict is not contrary to the evidence nor without evidence to support it, except as to $45 usury included therein. Indeed, the evidence clearly disclosed that the notes were given for a loan of money in one sum of $1,500, and the draft for the money was made payable to the order of the wife. It matters not that she indorsed the draft and delivered it to the husband; which fact may be inferred by his indorsement upon the draft. As was said by Bleckley, J., in the case of Boland v. Klink, 63 Ga. 448, “Generally, when a wife wants an agent to represent her in a business transaction, she will select her husband.” The case from which this language is quoted is in large measure controlling on the facts of this case. When the wife makes 'a purchase through her husband “it is the same as if she made it in person; and when the transaction creates a debt for property which is transferred or conveyed to her by the creditor, and she gives the required security in person, the debt is hers, not her husband’s, and the act of giving security binds her.” \

It does affirmatively appear, from the facts alleged in the petition, that the sum of $45, included in tlie three notes sued on, is usury. The judgment refusing sanction to the writ of certiorari must therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, C. J./and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 337, 19 Ga. App. 217, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swatts-v-harrison-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack