Alexander v. Easterling

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Alexander v. Easterling

102 S.E. 455, 25 Ga. App. 71, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 601

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 11, 1920

Docket11000

StatusPublished

This text of 102 S.E. 455 (Alexander v. Easterling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Easterling, 102 S.E. 455, 25 Ga. App. 71, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial (other than mere amplifications of the general grounds), to be treated at all, must be considered as in the nature of a motion based on newly dis[72]*72covered evidence; and a new trial cannot be granted for newly discovered evidence, where it is not made to appear by affidavit of the movant and his counsel that they did not know of such evidence before trial and that the same could not have been discovered with ordinary diligence. Park’s Ann. Code, § 6086, and note.

Decided March 11, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Reidsville — Judge Cowart. August 15, 1919.

S. B. McCall, W. T. Burkhalter, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Way, contra.

2. While the evidence in this case is not at all satisfactory to this court, there is some evidence to support the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, this court is compelled, under the limitations of the constitutional amendment creating it, to affirm his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial (other than mere amplifications of the general grounds), to be treated at all, must be considered as in the nature of a motion based on newly dis[72]*72covered evidence; and a new trial cannot be granted for newly discovered evidence, where it is not made to appear by affidavit of the movant and his counsel that they did not know of such evidence before trial and that the same could not have been discovered with ordinary diligence. Park’s Ann. Code, § 6086, and note.

Decided March 11, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Reidsville — Judge Cowart. August 15, 1919.

S. B. McCall, W. T. Burkhalter, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Way, contra.

2. While the evidence in this case is not at all satisfactory to this court, there is some evidence to support the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, this court is compelled, under the limitations of the constitutional amendment creating it, to affirm his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 455, 25 Ga. App. 71, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-easterling-gactapp-1920.