Taylor v. Murph

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Taylor v. Murph

138 S.E. 856, 37 Ga. App. 36, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 444

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1927

Docket18099

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.E. 856 (Taylor v. Murph) 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

Taylor v. Murph, 138 S.E. 856, 37 Ga. App. 36, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the' petition.

2. This was a suit for damages for the alleged breach of a partnership contract for the buying and selling of certain Florida real estate. A verdict for the plaintiff was returned; the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and to that judgment he excepted. The evidence established the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a contract for the buying and selling of certain real estate in the State of Florida. The evidence, however, failed to show any breach of the contract by the defendant, or that he was legally or morally liable in any amount.to the plaintiff. On the contrary, the evidence as a whole, properly construed, showed that the defendant, in the transactions involved, acted in good faith towards the plaintiff, and that he was in no way responsible for the plaintiff’s loss. It follows that tlie verdict in favor of the plaintiff was unauthorized, and that the refusal to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the' petition.

2. This was a suit for damages for the alleged breach of a partnership contract for the buying and selling of certain Florida real estate. A verdict for the plaintiff was returned; the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and to that judgment he excepted. The evidence established the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a contract for the buying and selling of certain real estate in the State of Florida. The evidence, however, failed to show any breach of the contract by the defendant, or that he was legally or morally liable in any amount.to the plaintiff. On the contrary, the evidence as a whole, properly construed, showed that the defendant, in the transactions involved, acted in good faith towards the plaintiff, and that he was in no way responsible for the plaintiff’s loss. It follows that tlie verdict in favor of the plaintiff was unauthorized, and that the refusal to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E. 856, 37 Ga. App. 36, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-murph-gactapp-1927.