Smith v. Smith
Supreme Court of Georgia
Action on sealed note, and motion for a new trial. Tried before Judge Crook, in Chattooga Superior Court, March Term, 1859. This was an action by Alfred T. Smith, against James M. Smith, on a sealed note, dated 13th day of June, 1832, payable oné^day after date to John W. Smith, or bearer, for one hunáred and fifty-seven dollars.
Read the full summary
Action on sealed note, and motion for a new trial. Tried before Judge Crook, in Chattooga Superior Court, March Term, 1859. This was an action by Alfred T. Smith, against James M. Smith, on a sealed note, dated 13th day of June, 1832, payable oné^day after date to John W. Smith, or bearer, for one hunáred and fifty-seven dollars. On the note was endorsed the following credit: “I receiyed on the within note 23 dollars and 75 cents, this the 2.9th October, 1851.” Defendant pleaded non est factum. Plaintiff proved by W. H. Smith, that he made the credit on the note, and it was made by the…
1Opinion of the Court
— Benning J.
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
Was the Court below right in refusing the motion for a new trial? We think so.
The main ground of the motion, urged here, was, the ground, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The issue was on the plea of non est factum. The verdict was in favor of the plea. The question on this ground, therefore, is, was the “weight of the evidence decidedly and strongly” against the plea?
The whole evidence against the plea consisted in the testimony of one witness, on one matter — consisted in the testimony of W. H. Smith, on the matter of the credit *369•…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rutland v. HathornSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867