Thompson v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. Thompson

154 S.E. 287, 41 Ga. App. 616, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1019

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1930

Docket20509

StatusPublished

This text of 154 S.E. 287 (Thompson v. Thompson) 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

Thompson v. Thompson, 154 S.E. 287, 41 Ga. App. 616, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1019 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The court did not err in refusing to allow to go to the jury the evidence the withholding of which was complained of in special grounds 1, 2, and 3.

2, There is no error in the excerpt from the charge of which complaint is made in ground 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

3. The record shows that Charles M. Thompson gave to Mrs. M. E. Thompson a note for $1500 as part of the purchase-price of certain lands, and there is evidence from which the jury were authorized to believe that at the time of the death of Mrs. Thompson the land trade had not been canceled, and that this note was still her property, and was then in the Broadnax Banking Company, and that Charles M. Thompson still owed it. The jury returned a verdict against C. M. Thompson for $1500, and the evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., eoneur.

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

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The court did not err in refusing to allow to go to the jury the evidence the withholding of which was complained of in special grounds 1, 2, and 3.

2, There is no error in the excerpt from the charge of which complaint is made in ground 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

3. The record shows that Charles M. Thompson gave to Mrs. M. E. Thompson a note for $1500 as part of the purchase-price of certain lands, and there is evidence from which the jury were authorized to believe that at the time of the death of Mrs. Thompson the land trade had not been canceled, and that this note was still her property, and was then in the Broadnax Banking Company, and that Charles M. Thompson still owed it. The jury returned a verdict against C. M. Thompson for $1500, and the evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E. 287, 41 Ga. App. 616, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-gactapp-1930.