Case Name: Cohen v. LaRoche, and vice versa
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1895-01-28
Citations: 95 Ga. 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cohen v. LaRoche, and vice versa.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Cohen v. LaRoche, and vice versa.
Atkinson, J. — The charge of the court was full and accurate as a whole; there was no error in that part of the charge complained of; the verdict was supported by the evidence, and the alleged newly discovered evidence is not of such a character as ought to have produced a different result.
January 28, 1895.
Action on contract. Before Judge MacDonell. City court of Savannah. November term, 1893.
LaRoche, a broker in real estate, stocks and bonds, sued Cohen, alleging that he contracted to pay plaintiff* $500 upon his getting Hartridge, then owner of some of the stock and bonds of the Savannah Times Publishing Company, to sell to Cohen all his said stock and bonds for $5,000; that in pursuance of the contract plaintiff’ did get Hartridge to consent to make the sale to Cohen at the price named, and the sale was made to Cohen; but that he refused to pay plaintiff" the $500. Hpon these allegations the evidence was conflicting; the testimony of plaintiff and of Hartridge supporting the same. The jury found for plaintiff, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. The motion contained the general grounds, a ground of newly discovered evidence, and an assignment of error on the following charge to the jury, as being misleading and unwarranted by the evidence: “If LaRoche did get Hartridge to agree to sell to Cohen his stock and bonds for the sum of $5,000, and Cohen called at his office for the purpose of having the sale drawn up, and while there Cohen substituted some other purchaser; if you believe Platshek was substituted by Cohen in place of himself; and if you further believe that Cohen asked for several days in which to' get up the purchase-money, and that this was consented to by Hartridge, and that he was then in a situation to deliver the stock and bonds, then the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict.” There was a cross-bill of exceptions to a refusal to dismiss the motion for new trial.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed.
Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.
O'Connor & O'Byrne, for Cohen.
McAlpin & LaRoche, contra.