Anthony v. Wingfield
This text of 85 S.E. 284 (Anthony v. Wingfield) 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.
Opinion
Where the grounds of a motion for a new trial are dependent upon a consideration of the evidence, and a brief of the evidence has not been prepared in even substantial compliance with section 6093 of the Civil Code, this court will not attempt to review the discretion of the trial judge in overruling such grounds. Grier v. Brown, 118 Ga. 670 (45 S. E. 455); Wall v. Mercer, 119 Ga. 346 (46 S. E. 420); Gairdner v. Tate, 121 Ga. 253 (48 S. E. 907); Whitaker v. State, 138 Ga. 139 (75 S. E. 254); Albany &c. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114). Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
85 S.E. 284, 16 Ga. App. 310, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-wingfield-gactapp-1915.