Videtto v. Hatcher

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Videtto v. Hatcher

134 S.E. 787, 35 Ga. App. 762, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1106

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 23, 1926

Docket16708

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 787 (Videtto v. Hatcher) 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

Videtto v. Hatcher, 134 S.E. 787, 35 Ga. App. 762, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1106 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Videtto was sued on a promissory note, and by his plea contended that he was not indebted, for the reason that at the time he executed the note he delivered to the plaintiffs two second-hand automobiles which they were to sell and credit on the note, ■ and that they did actually sell the automobiles for a sum in excess of the amount due thereon, and he prayed judgment for the excess. The evidence was in sharp conflict as to the [763]*763agreement with reference to the sale of the two second-hand automobiles. The jury, as they had a right to do, accepted the plaintiff’s version and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant assigns error upon the court’s failure to charge as requested, and upon several excerpts from the charge given. The charge of the court when read in its entirety is full, fair, and submits the issues, without confusion, to the jury. The defendant has had a legal trial of his case, and for no reason shown by the record did the court, after having approved the verdict upon the findings of fact, err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

Videtto was sued on a promissory note, and by his plea contended that he was not indebted, for the reason that at the time he executed the note he delivered to the plaintiffs two second-hand automobiles which they were to sell and credit on the note, ■ and that they did actually sell the automobiles for a sum in excess of the amount due thereon, and he prayed judgment for the excess. The evidence was in sharp conflict as to the [763]*763agreement with reference to the sale of the two second-hand automobiles. The jury, as they had a right to do, accepted the plaintiff’s version and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant assigns error upon the court’s failure to charge as requested, and upon several excerpts from the charge given. The charge of the court when read in its entirety is full, fair, and submits the issues, without confusion, to the jury. The defendant has had a legal trial of his case, and for no reason shown by the record did the court, after having approved the verdict upon the findings of fact, err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 787, 35 Ga. App. 762, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/videtto-v-hatcher-gactapp-1926.