Walker v. Forehand

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walker v. Forehand

86 S.E. 940, 17 Ga. App. 361, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 19, 1915

Docket6313

StatusPublished

This text of 86 S.E. 940 (Walker v. Forehand) 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

Walker v. Forehand, 86 S.E. 940, 17 Ga. App. 361, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

The allegations in a petition for certiorari must be treated as true until the coming in of the answer. This was a claim case, tried in a justice’s court. According to the petition for certiorari, the verdict of the jury was contrary to the direct and positive evidence of unimpeached witnesses, and there was nothing whatever to support it except an apparent conclusion testified to by the plaintiff in fi. fa., and the circumstance that, the defendant had returned the property in dispute for taxation in the name of himself and the claimant jointly; and this circumstance was explained. The judge of the superior court apparently based his refusal to sanction the writ upon the sole ground that the verdict complained of was a second concurrent verdict. Notwithstanding this fact, the evidence being wholly insufficient to authorize the verdict returned, it was error to decline for this reason to sanction the petition for certiorari. . Judgment reversed.

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

Wade, J.

The allegations in a petition for certiorari must be treated as true until the coming in of the answer. This was a claim case, tried in a justice’s court. According to the petition for certiorari, the verdict of the jury was contrary to the direct and positive evidence of unimpeached witnesses, and there was nothing whatever to support it except an apparent conclusion testified to by the plaintiff in fi. fa., and the circumstance that, the defendant had returned the property in dispute for taxation in the name of himself and the claimant jointly; and this circumstance was explained. The judge of the superior court apparently based his refusal to sanction the writ upon the sole ground that the verdict complained of was a second concurrent verdict. Notwithstanding this fact, the evidence being wholly insufficient to authorize the verdict returned, it was error to decline for this reason to sanction the petition for certiorari. . Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 940, 17 Ga. App. 361, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-forehand-gactapp-1915.