TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Agee v. Rhodes

Agee v. Rhodes, 92 S.E. 771 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 7, 1917
Docket
No. 8055
Judges
Bloodwoeth
Citations
92 S.E. 77120 Ga. App. 1171917 Ga. App. LEXIS 745
Summary
■ Complaint; from Warren superior court—Judge Walker. January 22,1916.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bloodwoeth

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

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. Grounds of a motion for new trial not specifically urged in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error will be considered to . have been abandoned. “Courts of review have the right to expect assistance from counsel by citation of authority or argument, and will . be apt to accept the inference that the lack of interest by counsel is due to a conviction of the lack of merit.” Youmans v. Moore, 11 Ga. App. 66 (4) ( 74 S. E. 710 ); Muse v. Hall, 18 Ga. App. 651 . (3) ( 90 S. E. 222 ); Jefferson v. Perry, 18 Ga. App. 690 (3) ( 90 S. E. 366 ).

2. The court charged the jury: .“If you find that J. P. Rhodes got this cotton, bought it in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and without any knowledge of the intention of the tenant Robert Rhodes to hinder or delay his landlord, Mrs. Agee, in the collection of her rents, or to defraud her in the collection of her rents, if you find that . there, was any such intention on the part of the tenant, that J. P. Rhodes bought this cotton in good faith, and credited the amount of . the cotton on an account that he contends that Robert Rhodes owed him, then I charge you that J. P. Rhodes got a good title, and that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover anything in this case, so far 1 as Mr. J. P. Rhodes is concerned.” It was contended that this is error, because J. P. Rhodes credited the cotton on the account of Robert Rhodes and parted with no consideration at the time he received'the cotton. This contention is not sound. “The surrender and satisfaction : of an existing debt, if done bona fide, operates as a present consideration.” Sutton v . Ford, 144 Ga. 588 ( 87 S. E. 799 ); Harris v. Evans, 134 Ga. 161 (4) ( 67 S. E. 880 ).

3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1918: 11924: 11929: 11932: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Few v. Pou124 S.E. 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)
  2. First National Bank v. MacDougald Construction Co.166 S.E. 256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
  3. Phinazee v. State95 S.E. 878 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)
  4. Cluff v. Merchants & Mechanics Bank149 S.E. 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)

Most recent

  1. First National Bank v. MacDougald Construction Co.166 S.E. 256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
  2. Cluff v. Merchants & Mechanics Bank149 S.E. 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
  3. Few v. Pou124 S.E. 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)
  4. Phinazee v. State95 S.E. 878 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Youmans v. Moore, 74 S.E. 710 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912) 19
Muse v. Hall, 90 S.E. 222 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916) 11
Harris v. Evans, 67 S.E. 880 (Ga. 1910) 10
Jefferson v. City of Perry, 90 S.E. 366 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916) 6
Sutton v. Ford, 87 S.E. 799 (Ga. 1916) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list