Sappington v. Bell
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Bell (Ga. Ct. App. 1959)
- Dollar v. Dollar (Ga. 1958)
- Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Wilkerson (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)
- Gardner v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
- Jones v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
- Frazier v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
- Sharp v. Thomas (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
- Fuels, Inc. v. Rutland (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)
- Busbee v. Battle (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)
- Myers v. Gastley (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
- Garrison v. Garmon (Ga. Ct. App. 1957)
- Bennett v. Taylor (Ga. Ct. App. 1957)
- Burns v. Colonial Stores, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
- Strickland Motors Inc. v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1950)
- Independent Life & Accident Insurance v. Hopkins (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
- Fussell v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1948)
- Johnson v. Woodward Lumber Company (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
- Rumph v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1946)
- Western Atlantic R. v. Gardner (Ga. Ct. App. 1946)
- Holton v. Mercer (Ga. 1942)
- Davis v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)
- Ocean Accident Guarantee Corporation v. Lane (Ga. Ct. App. 1940)
- Providence Washington Insurance v. Pass (Ga. Ct. App. 1940)
- Brown v. O'Neal (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
- Kelly v. Locke (Ga. 1938)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
1. A jury in arriving at a conclusion upon disputed issues of fact may believe a part of the testimony of a witness or witnesses, and reject another part thereof, it being their duty to ascertain the truth of the case from the opinion they entertain of all the evidence submitted for their consideration.
2. Where a petition sets up separate and distinct demands against the defendant and embraces prayers for alternative relief, it is not prejudicial to the plaintiff for the court to frame its instructions accordingly ; and the more especially is this so when the plaintiff insists that both .demands be submitted to and passed upon by the jury.
S. There was in the present case evidence warranting a finding against the petitioners for the specific relief sought, and in favor of the petitioners for a recovery in money.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.