Williams v. Williams

Supreme Court of Georgia

Williams v. Williams

118 S.E. 195, 155 Ga. 622, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 135

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 19, 1923

DocketNo. 3436

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 S.E. 195 (Williams v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Williams, 118 S.E. 195, 155 Ga. 622, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 135 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The plaintiff’s suit, which was in equity, was based ■upon a claim that in the settlement of a partnership business á mutual mistake had been made by an accountant who had been agreed upon between the parties to calculate ‘and determine the amount due the plaintiff. It is not clear from the plaintiff’s evidence -that this mistake,.if any, was mutual. On the other hand the jury would have been authorized to find from the plaintiff’s evidence that the settlement was not strictly upon the figures of the agreed accountant, but that they were arbitrarily arrived at and agreed to for the purpose of winding up and settling the differences between mother and son and making an end of litigation. The. verdict was unauthorized, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

The plaintiff’s suit, which was in equity, was based ■upon a claim that in the settlement of a partnership business á mutual mistake had been made by an accountant who had been agreed upon between the parties to calculate ‘and determine the amount due the plaintiff. It is not clear from the plaintiff’s evidence -that this mistake,.if any, was mutual. On the other hand the jury would have been authorized to find from the plaintiff’s evidence that the settlement was not strictly upon the figures of the agreed accountant, but that they were arbitrarily arrived at and agreed to for the purpose of winding up and settling the differences between mother and son and making an end of litigation. The. verdict was unauthorized, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 195, 155 Ga. 622, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-ga-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack