Johnson v. Mccrary
| Decision Date | 28 February 1884 |
| Citation | Johnson v. Mccrary, 73 Ga. 138 (Ga. 1884) |
| Parties | Johnson. vs. Renfroe & McCrary. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
1.Where no exception is made to the charge or other ruling of the court on the trial, and the motion for a new trial is grounded alone on the position that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the law of the case and charge of the court, and the law was fairly presented to the jury, and they have passed on the facts, the stat-ute vests in the superior court the discretion to grant or refuse a new trial, and unless that discretion be abused, this court has no legal power to interfere.
2.This is an action for deceit in that the agent of the plaintiff in error made knowingly false and fraudulent representations to induce the purchase of the mules, under sections 2958and2199 of the Code.In such a case, which involves fraud, in that it is "subtle in itself...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
6 cases
-
Sires v. Luke, Civ. A. No. CV180-214.
...exists. The question of fraud on the part of the plaintiff toward the defendant is a matter for the jury to decide. See Johnson v. Renfroe & McCrary, 73 Ga. 138 (1884). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as it pertains to the defendant's allegations o......
-
Tolar Const. Co. v. GAF Corp.
...of its existence. Code Ann. § 37-706. It is peculiarly the province of the jury to pass on these circumstances. Johnson v. Renfroe & McCrary, 73 Ga. 138 (1884); Wells v. Blitch, 182 Ga. 826, 187 S.E. 86 The trial court here ruled that GAF had made no misrepresentation regarding the roofing ......
-
Alpharetta, Old Milton County, Georgia Historical & Genealogical Soc., Inc. v. Dowda
...conviction of its existence." OCGA § 23-2-57. "[I]t is peculiarly the province of the jury to pass on these circumstances." Johnson v. Renfroe & McCrary, 73 Ga. 138. See Wells v. Blitch, 182 Ga. 826, 187 S.E. 86. Furthermore, it has not been established that this appeal is wholly frivolous.......
-
Allen v. Allen
...particularly ones for determination by jury, not the Court. This has been the law since at least 1884 when the case of Johnson v. Renfroe & McCrary, 73 Ga. 138 [was 2. The following authorities are controlling: (a) "Proceedings for a divorce and for alimony have always, under the practice i......
Get Started for Free