Smith v. Patterson
Decision Date | 28 October 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 33262,33262,1 |
Citation | 82 Ga.App. 595,61 S.E.2d 679 |
Parties | SMITH v. PATTERSON |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the testimony of the defendant, substantiated by another, clearly shows that the defendant was entitled to prevail in an action, and where the only other view of the transaction involved is presented by the plaintiff, and shows an illegal or immoral transaction of the sort to which the court will not lend its aid in support of an action by either party, a verdict was demanded for the defendant, and a verdict having been returned for the plaintiff and judgment rendered accordingly, the trial judge erred in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.
Robert R. Forrester, Tifton, for plaintiff in error.
Ford & Houston, Sylvester, R. D. Smith, Tifton, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by A. V. Patterson against W. C. Smith, in Worth Superior Court, to recover $250, it being alleged that the plaintiff gave the defendant a check on the Sylvester Banking Company payable to the order of the defendant for $250 with the understanding that the same would be used by the defendant in reaching an agreement with H. A. Hornbuckle in regard to a controversy, and would not be presented to the bank for payment, but would be returned to the plaintiff, and that the defendant violated this agreement, and illegally, wrongfully, and fraudulently presented the check to the bank for payment and received $250 therefor, injuring and damaging the plaintiff in such sum. The defendant denied liability and alleged that the check was given to him in accordance with an agreement whereby the plaintiff and Hornbuckle each agreed to pay him $250 for his service in connection with the sale to the plaintiff of a farm owned by Hornbuckle.
The plaintiff testified, in part, as follows:
The defendant testified, in part, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gaines v. Wolcott
...where the same is dependent upon an illegal or immoral transaction. Glass v. Childs, 9 Ga.App. 520, 522, 71 S.E. 920; Smith v. Patterson, 82 Ga.App. 595, 598, 61 S.E.2d 679. But a person does not become an outlaw and lose all rights by doing an illegal act. Cases where the action is based o......
-
A. M. Kidder & Co. v. Clement A. Evans & Co.
...where the same is dependent upon an illegal or immoral transaction. Glass v. Childs, 9 Ga.App. 520, 522, 71 S.E. 920; Smith v. Patterson, 82 Ga.App. 595, 598, 61 S.E.2d 679. But a person does not become an outlaw and lose all rights by doing an illegal act. Cases where the action is based o......
-
Jones v. Lowman
...v. Laramore, 18 Ga.App. 132, 88 S.E. 901. And also see generally Robinson v. Reynolds, 194 Ga. 324, 21 S.E.2d 214; Smith v. Patterson, 82 Ga.App. 595, 598, 61 S.E.2d 679, and cases It was error for the court to refuse to give such requested charge, which was legal, apt, and precisely adjust......
-
English v. Yellow Cab Co.
...be proved. Hortman v. Vissage, 193 Ga. 596(2, 6), 19 S.E.2d 523; Morgan's, Inc. v. Mons, 79 Ga.App. 525, 54 S.E.2d 498; Smith v. Patterson, 82 Ga.App. 595, 61 S.E.2d 679. In our opinion, the evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the taxicab belonged to the defendant and......