Webb v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Webb v. Thompson

95 S.E. 471, 22 Ga. App. 39, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 126

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1918

Docket9344

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 471 (Webb 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

Webb v. Thompson, 95 S.E. 471, 22 Ga. App. 39, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 126 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

1. In one ground of the motion for new’ trial it is alleged that the defendant was asked the question if he, in order to carry out the contract, had sold a portion of said land in order to enable him to pay for the land; to which he answered yes; and that the court excluded this- testimony. It appears from the motion that counsel for the defendant admitted that the contract with plaintiff did not contemplate that defendant should sell any of the land; and under this admission the court did not err in excluding this testimony. '

2. In another ground of the motion it is complained that the plaintiff was permitted by the court to explain' a certain letter which the plaintiff had written to the defendant. The court did [40]*40mot err in admitting this testimony, and there was no merit in this ground of the motion.

3. The court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion. There was a sharp conflict between the plaintiif and defendant as to the making of the alleged verbal contract extending the time of payment, but the jury decided this issue in favor-of the plaintiff. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and approved by the trial judge; and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworthy J., concur.

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

Harwell, J.

1. In one ground of the motion for new’ trial it is alleged that the defendant was asked the question if he, in order to carry out the contract, had sold a portion of said land in order to enable him to pay for the land; to which he answered yes; and that the court excluded this- testimony. It appears from the motion that counsel for the defendant admitted that the contract with plaintiff did not contemplate that defendant should sell any of the land; and under this admission the court did not err in excluding this testimony. '

2. In another ground of the motion it is complained that the plaintiff was permitted by the court to explain' a certain letter which the plaintiff had written to the defendant. The court did [40]*40mot err in admitting this testimony, and there was no merit in this ground of the motion.

3. The court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion. There was a sharp conflict between the plaintiif and defendant as to the making of the alleged verbal contract extending the time of payment, but the jury decided this issue in favor-of the plaintiff. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and approved by the trial judge; and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworthy J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 471, 22 Ga. App. 39, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-thompson-gactapp-1918.