Case ID: ga_162/html/0238-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hill, J. Russell, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tucker et al. v. Wimpey et al.
    
    No. 5158.
    May 13, 1926.
    Complaint for land. Before Judge Mathews. Houston superior court. October 5, 1925.
    
      Hall, Grice & Bloch and M. Hum, for plaintiffs.
    
      Duncan & Nunn and Byals & Anderson, for defendants.
   Hill, J.

This is the third appearance of this case in this court (Tucker v. Wimpey, 155 Ga. 118, 116 S. E. 315; Tucker v. Wimpey, 158 Ga. 820, 124 S. E. 692) ; but on the last trial the evidence was different from what it was on the other trials, and required the verdict for .the defendants, directed by the court.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., dissenting.

Russell, C. J.,

dissenting. In my opinion it was error to direct a verdict. The law of this case was fixed in its previous appeai'ance in the 158 Ga. 820. As pointed out at that time by the court, the infirmity of the defendants’ case is in the writing which they urged as color. This infirmity can not be cured by oral testimony.