Portwood v. Bennett Trading Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Per curiam
1. When a given state of facts will authorize several different conclusions, it is a question of fact as to which is the true and correct solution; but where only one reasonable inference can be drawn therefrom, the question is resolved into one of law, and may be determined as a matter of law by the court. Code, § 110-104; Dixon v. Bristol Savings Bank, 102 Ga. 461, 468 (31 S. E. 96, 66 Am. St. R. 193).
2. The facts stated in the certified question, if proved without dispute Or qualification, would authorize no inference other than that the “transactions did not constitute a series of bona…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dixon v. Bristol Savings BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Jackson v. BloodworthCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Hinton v. Mack Purchasing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Parsons v. FoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
3Cited by15 opinions
- Canal Insurance Co. v. TateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Mell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
- Gunnels v. Atlanta Bar AssociationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Gunnels v. Atlanta Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Barfield v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.