Case ID: ga_111/html/0851-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lumpkin, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Davis v. Mims.
    Argued June 11, —
    Decided July 12, 1900.
    Foreclosure of mortgage. Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton superior court. January 1, 1900.
    
      Smith, Hammond & Smith, for plaintiff.
    
      C. W. Smith and Fulton Colville, for defendant.
   Lumpkin, P. J.

This case turned upon two questions of fact, viz.: (1) whether or not the plaintiff took the promissory notes, upon which his action was based, with notice of the equities between the original parties ; and (2) whether or not the consideration of these notes had failed. It being essential to the lawfulness of a general finding for the defendant that the first of these questions should be properly resolved in the affirmative, and there being no evidence to warrant the jury in so doing, the verdict against the plaintiff was contrary to law, and the trial judge erred in not setting it aside. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring..