Tennille Banking Co. v. Continental Trust Co.

136 S.E. 323, 36 Ga. App. 156, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 834
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 14, 1926·No. 16295·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

The decision of the vital issue in this ease is controlled by the ruling in the first headnote and subdivision thereof, in the case of Continental Trust Co. v. Bank of Harrison, 36 Ga. App. 149 (134 S. E. 775). See Tennille Banking Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 162 Ga. 766 (134 S. E. 778). Though the judgment in the Bank of Harrison case, supra, is affirmed by this court, the judgment in the present case, because of a different verdict having been rendered in the trial court, is

Reversed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Tennille Banking Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 136 S.E. 323, 36 Ga. App. 156, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 834 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

136 S.E. 323 (Tennille Banking Co. v. Continental Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Continental Trust Co. v. Tennille Banking Co.
146 S.E. 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)