¶1A motion for a new trial was made in this case upon *337the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the: evidence, which the court overruled, and the plaintiffs in error excepted. "We are of the opinion that a new trial should have been granted upon the grounds stated, in the motion. The evidence shows very plainly that the title to the property levied on was in the husband' of the claimant (who is the defendant in error), that she recognized it by taking a mortgage to the property from her husband to herself, which was foreclosed; and although she alleges that this was done without her knowledge or consent, it is not shown that the attorney who acted for her was not in fact her attorney; so> therefore, what he knew the law charged her with knowing. We think the court did wrong to refuse to grant a new trial in this case, and the judgment is therefore Reversed.
86 Ga. 333
Silvey & Co. v. Chamblee
Decided December 20, 1890
Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1890-12-20
Claim. Title. Husband and wife. Attorney and client. Before Judge Hutchins. Gwinnett superior court. March adjourned term, 1890. An execution in favor of John Silvey & Company 5 issued from a judgment of March 20, 1886, against T. C. Chamblee, was levied on 140 acres of land in Gwinnett county. Chamblee interposed a claim as agent for his wife. Hpon the trial the execution was introduced, and the claimant admitted that the defendant was in possession at the date of the levy.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1926
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-12-20
View the full empirical analysis of this case →