First Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Langford
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Judge.
It is not the prerogative of this court to place itself in the position of an arbiter of contested evidence. The defendant had solid reasons for refusing to pay over the funds involved to the plaintiff and insisting on a determination of the controversy by the courts. On the other hand, there is some evidence supporting the plaintiff’s position and the trial judge, acting as judge and jury, carries the unique burden of reaching a solution to a puzzle from which so many pieces are missing. Craddock v. Law, 203 Ga. 264 (2) (46 SE2d 136). Appellant urges that the plaintiff’s…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Young v. DurhamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Craddock v. LawSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kingston Development Co. v. KenerlyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Comtrol, Inc. v. H-K Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Worthington v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
- Dominy v. MaysCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Associated Distributors, Inc. v. McBeeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.