Thomas v. Monticello Vehicle Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thomas v. Monticello Vehicle Co.

73 S.E. 428, 10 Ga. App. 260, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 449

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1912

Docket3286

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 428 (Thomas v. Monticello Vehicle Co.) 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

Thomas v. Monticello Vehicle Co., 73 S.E. 428, 10 Ga. App. 260, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 449 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. In a suit in a justice’s court on an account, where the judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, for principal and interest, it was not erroneous for the justice to enter a judgment for the amount of interest, as well as for the principal, due on the account, at 7 per cent, per annum from the date when the account became due; nor to enter judgment against the defendant for the costs, including the jury fee (paid by the plaintiff on reception of the verdict), when the ease was appealed to a jury in the justice’s court.

2. No error of law appears, and there is some slight evidence to support the verdict in the justice’s court; hence, the judgment of the superior court in overruling the certiorari must be Affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. In a suit in a justice’s court on an account, where the judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, for principal and interest, it was not erroneous for the justice to enter a judgment for the amount of interest, as well as for the principal, due on the account, at 7 per cent, per annum from the date when the account became due; nor to enter judgment against the defendant for the costs, including the jury fee (paid by the plaintiff on reception of the verdict), when the ease was appealed to a jury in the justice’s court.

2. No error of law appears, and there is some slight evidence to support the verdict in the justice’s court; hence, the judgment of the superior court in overruling the certiorari must be Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 428, 10 Ga. App. 260, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-monticello-vehicle-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack