Wells v. McMahon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wells v. McMahon

106 S.E. 297, 26 Ga. App. 397, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 176

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1921

Docket11740

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 297 (Wells v. McMahon) 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

Wells v. McMahon, 106 S.E. 297, 26 Ga. App. 397, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 176 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

In the municipal court of Atlanta Mrs. McMahon sued Wells on a promissory note. Admitting that the [398]*398amount sued for was correct, the defendant pleaded a set-off. On conflicting evidence the jury found for the plaintiff the full amount sued for. The defendant applied for a writ of certiorari, alleging that “ said verdict and said judgment thereon was contrary to the evidence, without evidence to support it, and contrary to the principles of justice and equity.” The judge of the superior court refused to sanction the certiorari, and in his order said: “The evidence warranted the verdict; the jury were the judges of the credibility of the witnesses; they had the right, if they saw fit, to believe the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, which was in conflict with the testimony of the witnesses for the defendant.” It is well settled that the jury are the final arbiters on questions of fact, and where they have passed on the evidence and no error of law is shown, their finding is final. The judge of the superior court properly refused to sanction the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

In the municipal court of Atlanta Mrs. McMahon sued Wells on a promissory note. Admitting that the [398]*398amount sued for was correct, the defendant pleaded a set-off. On conflicting evidence the jury found for the plaintiff the full amount sued for. The defendant applied for a writ of certiorari, alleging that “ said verdict and said judgment thereon was contrary to the evidence, without evidence to support it, and contrary to the principles of justice and equity.” The judge of the superior court refused to sanction the certiorari, and in his order said: “The evidence warranted the verdict; the jury were the judges of the credibility of the witnesses; they had the right, if they saw fit, to believe the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, which was in conflict with the testimony of the witnesses for the defendant.” It is well settled that the jury are the final arbiters on questions of fact, and where they have passed on the evidence and no error of law is shown, their finding is final. The judge of the superior court properly refused to sanction the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 297, 26 Ga. App. 397, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-mcmahon-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack