Watson v. Lithonia Banking Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watson v. Lithonia Banking Co.

99 S.E. 544, 23 Ga. App. 808, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 368

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1919

Docket10363

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 544 (Watson v. Lithonia Banking 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

Watson v. Lithonia Banking Co., 99 S.E. 544, 23 Ga. App. 808, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 368 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

' This was a suit in a justice’s court upon a promissory note. The defendant filed a plea of non est factum. The trial of the case in the justice’s court having resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, certiorari was sued out. One of the grounds of the petition for certiorari was that the note sued upon was not introduced in evidence. The magistrate’s answer states that the note was introduced in evidence. The defendant thereupon traversed the magistrate’s answer as to this statement. At the conclusion of the evidence upon the issue thus raised, the judge of the superior court directed the jury to return a verdict against the traverse, and also 'overruled the certiorari. A motion for a new trial, based on the ground that the judge of the superior court erred in directing the verdict, was overruled, and exception is taken to this judgment, as well as to the order overruling the certiorari.

Although the presumption is that the statement made in the magistrate’s answer was true, the traverse to the answer raised an issue of fact, and since the evidence introduced upon this issue was in sharp conflict, this court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the evidence demanded a finding in accordance with that presumption, and therefore the’action of the judge of the superior court in directing a verdict against the traverse and in overruling the certiorari is

Reversed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

' This was a suit in a justice’s court upon a promissory note. The defendant filed a plea of non est factum. The trial of the case in the justice’s court having resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, certiorari was sued out. One of the grounds of the petition for certiorari was that the note sued upon was not introduced in evidence. The magistrate’s answer states that the note was introduced in evidence. The defendant thereupon traversed the magistrate’s answer as to this statement. At the conclusion of the evidence upon the issue thus raised, the judge of the superior court directed the jury to return a verdict against the traverse, and also 'overruled the certiorari. A motion for a new trial, based on the ground that the judge of the superior court erred in directing the verdict, was overruled, and exception is taken to this judgment, as well as to the order overruling the certiorari.

Although the presumption is that the statement made in the magistrate’s answer was true, the traverse to the answer raised an issue of fact, and since the evidence introduced upon this issue was in sharp conflict, this court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the evidence demanded a finding in accordance with that presumption, and therefore the’action of the judge of the superior court in directing a verdict against the traverse and in overruling the certiorari is

Reversed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 544, 23 Ga. App. 808, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-lithonia-banking-co-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack