Harrell v. Blackshear Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | 12530 |
| Citation | 1 S.E.2d 440,187 Ga. 531 |
| Parties | HARRELL v. BLACKSHEAR MFG. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Heath & Heath, of Douglas, and S. T. Memory, of Blackshear, for plaintiff in error.
Memory & Memory, of Blackshear, for defendant in error.
1. In a suit to enjoin exercise of a power of sale contained in a security deed, a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant for recovery of the amount of a note set up by the answer in the nature of a cross-action. Under the pleadings and evidence two questions were raised, first, whether the note was procured by fraud, and, second, whether the note had been paid.
Held (a) An adverse finding on either question would have defeated the defendant's cross demand.
(b) The charge: 'The court charges you that if you should find that Mr. Harrell knew that he was signing the note sued upon, and knew that he was signing the extension agreement if you find from the evidence that he knew that, then your deliberations in this case would stop there, and you should find a verdict in favor of the defendant, the Blackshear Manufacturing Company, for the amount sued for,' as complained of in the fourth ground of the plaintiff's motion for new trial, considered with its context, was confusing as tending to exclude the question of payment dealt with in other parts of the charge
(c) It was erroneous, as complained of in grounds 6 and 12 of the plaintiff's motion for new trial, to charge in such manner as to confuse the two questions and as tending to make voidance of the note for fraud in its procurement depend also on payment.
2. The charge complained of in the fifth ground of the motion for new trial relating to consideration of evidence was inaccurate as stating part of the provisions of the Code, § 38-107, referring to that subject, and omitting part. As a new trial will result from the decision on other grounds of the motion, no ruling will be made as to the sufficiency of the inaccuracy to require a new trial.
3. The judge charged concretely the law of fraud as applicable to the issues under the pleadings and evidence. If further instructions on the subject had been desired as set forth in grounds 7 to 11, inclusive, of the motion for new trial complaining of omissions to charge, they should have been requested.
4. As the judgment will be reversed for errors complained of in special grounds of the motion for new trial as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Porter v. La Grange Banking & Trust Co.
- Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Harrell
-
Young v. Looper
...favor of the plaintiff, was such harmful error as to require the grant of a new trial. See, in this connection, Harrell v. Blackshear Manufacturing Co., 187 Ga. 531, 1 S.E.2d 440; Henderson v. Murray, 42 Ga.App. 489, 156 S.E. 2. Special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial, which complain......