Thigpen v. Mahoney

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thigpen v. Mahoney

149 S.E. 920, 40 Ga. App. 430, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 182

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 4, 1929

Docket19317

StatusPublished

This text of 149 S.E. 920 (Thigpen v. Mahoney) 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

Thigpen v. Mahoney, 149 S.E. 920, 40 Ga. App. 430, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 182 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. This being a suit to recover an alleged balance due by the defendant on the agreed purchase-price of a half interest in a stock of goods which the plaintiff had sold to the defendant and which belonged to a partnership of which the plaintiff was a member, and there being evidence to authorize the inference that the plaintiff, through her authorized agent, had directed the defendant to pay the debts of the partnership and credit the payments on the purchase-price, and that the defendant, after becoming a member of the partnership in lieu of the plaintiff, either directly or by such new partnership, paid to the creditors of the old partnership more than the plaintiff’s interest in that partnership’s debts, the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount sued for.

[431]*431Decided October 4, 1929. Rehearing denied October 5, 1929. M. E. Blachshear, J. 8. Adams, for plaintiff in error. G. G. Crockett, contra.

2. The petition set out a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly overruled. Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., coneur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. This being a suit to recover an alleged balance due by the defendant on the agreed purchase-price of a half interest in a stock of goods which the plaintiff had sold to the defendant and which belonged to a partnership of which the plaintiff was a member, and there being evidence to authorize the inference that the plaintiff, through her authorized agent, had directed the defendant to pay the debts of the partnership and credit the payments on the purchase-price, and that the defendant, after becoming a member of the partnership in lieu of the plaintiff, either directly or by such new partnership, paid to the creditors of the old partnership more than the plaintiff’s interest in that partnership’s debts, the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount sued for.

[431]*431Decided October 4, 1929. Rehearing denied October 5, 1929. M. E. Blachshear, J. 8. Adams, for plaintiff in error. G. G. Crockett, contra.

2. The petition set out a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly overruled. Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., coneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E. 920, 40 Ga. App. 430, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thigpen-v-mahoney-gactapp-1929.