Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/American Mills Co. v. Pruitt-Barrett Hardware Co.

American Mills Co. v. Pruitt-Barrett Hardware Co.

117 S.E. 110, 30 Ga. App. 161, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 328
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 11, 1923
Docket14182
StatusPublished

This text of 117 S.E. 110 (American Mills Co. v. Pruitt-Barrett Hardware Co.) 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
American Mills Co. v. Pruitt-Barrett Hardware Co., 117 S.E. 110, 30 Ga. App. 161, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 328 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. “The mere fact that there are conflicts in the testimony does not render the direction of a verdict in favor of a party erroneous,' when it appears that the conflicts are immaterial, and that, giving to the opposite party the benefit of the most favorable view of the evidence as a whole and of all legitimate inferences therefrom, the verdict against him is demanded.” Dorris v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 22 Ga. App. 514 (5), 518 (5) (96 S. E. 450), and citations.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J-., conour. • J. 0. Adams, B. P. Gaillard Jr., for plaintiff. O. N. Davie, for defendant.

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

Related

Dorris v. Farmers & Merchants Bank
96 S.E. 450 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 S.E. 110, 30 Ga. App. 161, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-mills-co-v-pruitt-barrett-hardware-co-gactapp-1923.