Willoughby v. Bank of Monroe

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Willoughby v. Bank of Monroe

171 S.E. 772, 48 Ga. App. 6, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 440

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 14, 1933

Docket22984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 772 (Willoughby v. Bank of Monroe) 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

Willoughby v. Bank of Monroe, 171 S.E. 772, 48 Ga. App. 6, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 440 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

This was a proceeding-to foreclose a bill of sale executed by the defendant to the plaintiff bank to secure advances made by it to him to make his crops. The defendant filed an affidavit of illegality in which he set up that he had paid the note that evidenced the indebtedness to the bank secured by the bill of sale. On the trial of the issue thus made the evidence was directly in conflict as to the contentions made by the defendant in his affidavit of illegality. The court correctly charged the jury, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff. In these circumstances, no error of law appearing, this court will not reverse the judgment of the court 'below overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Sutton, J.

This was a proceeding-to foreclose a bill of sale executed by the defendant to the plaintiff bank to secure advances made by it to him to make his crops. The defendant filed an affidavit of illegality in which he set up that he had paid the note that evidenced the indebtedness to the bank secured by the bill of sale. On the trial of the issue thus made the evidence was directly in conflict as to the contentions made by the defendant in his affidavit of illegality. The court correctly charged the jury, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff. In these circumstances, no error of law appearing, this court will not reverse the judgment of the court 'below overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.E. 772, 48 Ga. App. 6, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willoughby-v-bank-of-monroe-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack