Peagler v. Huey

PEAGLER v. HUEY et vice versa

Peagler v. Huey, 188 S.E. 906 (Ga. 1936)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 27, 1936
Docket: Nos. 11492, 11493
Citations: 188 S.E. 906183 Ga. 6771936 Ga. LEXIS 273

Cited by 14 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

' While the jury in their special verdict found that the assets of the Clinch County Bank were liquidated by distribution thereof in kind to certain of the defendants who delivered up certain claims against the bank and paid all depositors in full, they also found that there was no fraud in the transaction; that the same was done by the superintendent of banks under order of the judge of the superior court; that there was no misrepresentation of fact by Huey, Carswell, Dame, Biberón, to the superintendent of banks or to any one else, including the plaintiffs; that there was no loss to any creditor of the bank by reason of any fraud, as contended; that the defendants to whom such assets of the bank were conveyed carried out their contracts and promises, and all depositors were paid off in full; and that such sales or transfers of the assets of the bank were not made without the consent and acquiescence of Peagler and Barnhill. All of these findings were supported by the evidence. There was no evidence that the plaintiffs objected to the plan of the superintendent of banks to liquidate the bank in this manner, but on the contrary there was evidence to the effect that they were aware of such plan and acquiesced therein, and that such plaintiffs thought that *682 the plan of the superintendent was a good method of liquidation; and it did not appear that any stockholder of the bank was injured, by this method of liquidation. The headnotes do not require further elaboration.

Judgment affirmed on the mam hill of exceptions; cross-hill dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(“The only evidence as to the alleged disqualification of a juror was an affidavit of the juror himself; and it is well settled that a juror will not be heard to impeach his verdict by showing his own incompetency or disqualification”)

Wright v. State, 504 S.E.2d 261 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Gossett v. State48 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. 1948)
Bissell v. State266 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Reece v. State69 S.E.2d 92 (Ga. 1952)
Weintraub v. COBB BANK & TRUST COMPANY288 S.E.2d 553 (Ga. 1982)
Wright v. State504 S.E.2d 261 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)
Fields v. Balkcom89 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. 1955)

Most recent

Wright v. State504 S.E.2d 261 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)
Weintraub v. COBB BANK & TRUST COMPANY288 S.E.2d 553 (Ga. 1982)
Moore v. Keller266 S.E.2d 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Bissell v. State266 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
First National Bank v. Harrison408 F. Supp. 137 (N.D. Ga. 1975)
Cohan v. Flanders315 F. Supp. 1046 (S.D. Ga. 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list