White v. Claxton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White v. Claxton

76 S.E. 1040, 12 Ga. App. 141, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 465

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1913

Docket4455

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.E. 1040 (White v. Claxton) 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

White v. Claxton, 76 S.E. 1040, 12 Ga. App. 141, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 465 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. This was a suit on a note given for the first premium on a life-insuranee policy. The defense relied upon was that the consideration of the note had failed, in that the plaintiff had not delivered to the defendant the kind of policy contract requested by his written application, the policy actually delivered being entirely different from the one desired by the defendant and described in his application. In support of this plea the defendant offered to testify orally as to the kind of policy he had made written application for, and the kind of policy he had received. He did not offer the written application or the policy, or account for their absence. Held, that there was no error in excluding the oral testimony. Civil Code (1910), § 5752.

2. The verdict for the plaintiff was demanded by the evidence, except as to attorney’s fees, and this part was written off.

3. The writ of error is so manifestly without merit that the judgment is affirmed, and the motion to add to the judgment ten per cent., as damages for frivolous appeal, is allowed.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. This was a suit on a note given for the first premium on a life-insuranee policy. The defense relied upon was that the consideration of the note had failed, in that the plaintiff had not delivered to the defendant the kind of policy contract requested by his written application, the policy actually delivered being entirely different from the one desired by the defendant and described in his application. In support of this plea the defendant offered to testify orally as to the kind of policy he had made written application for, and the kind of policy he had received. He did not offer the written application or the policy, or account for their absence. Held, that there was no error in excluding the oral testimony. Civil Code (1910), § 5752.

2. The verdict for the plaintiff was demanded by the evidence, except as to attorney’s fees, and this part was written off.

3. The writ of error is so manifestly without merit that the judgment is affirmed, and the motion to add to the judgment ten per cent., as damages for frivolous appeal, is allowed.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 1040, 12 Ga. App. 141, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-claxton-gactapp-1913.