Case ID: ga_94/html/0655-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ambrose v. Ambrose, administratrix.
    1. The case was not within the statute of frauds. Code, §1951; Little v. McCarter, 89 ÍT. Car. 233.
    2. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial. . Judgment affirmed.
    
    July 30, 1894.
    Complaint. Before Judge Hutchins. Gwinnett superior court. September term, 1893.
    Juhan & McDonald, for plaintiff in error.
    C. H. Brand, contra.
    
   The administratrix of J. D. Ambrose sued B. S. Ambrose for-$100, her claim being, in substance, as follows: Two parcels of land were for sale, one at $1,500, the other at $900. They would not be sold without selling both. B. S. Ambi’ose wanted to buy the land, but his father would furnish only $1,500, and h.e procured his brother J. D. to buy the second place and give his notes for $900, upon the oral agreement that he was to pay only $800 for it and B. S. would pay him the $100 difference. Plaintiff has paid off' the notes for $900 since the death of J. D., and defendant refuses to pay the $100. There were pleas of the general issue and the statute of frauds. On conflicting evidence the jury found for the plaintiff) and defendant’s motion on the general grounds for a new trial was overruled.