Arnold v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnold v. Mitchell

99 S.E. 135, 23 Ga. App. 658, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 267

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 22, 1919·No. 10095·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial that the court erred in allowing in evidence certain documentary evidence can not be considered, since the evidence referred to is not set forth either literally or in substance in' the motion or in an exhibit thereto. Walton v. Busby, 147 Ga. 487 (94 S. E. 562) ; Willbanks v. Byrd-Matthews Lumber Co., 146 Ga. 750 (3) (92 S. E. 281); Bank of Norwood v. Chapman, 19 Ga. App. 709 (3) (92 S. E. 225).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment is'

Affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial that the court erred in allowing in evidence certain documentary evidence can not be considered, since the evidence referred to is not set forth either literally or in substance in' the motion or in an exhibit thereto. Walton v. Busby, 147 Ga. 487 (94 S. E. 562) ; Willbanks v. Byrd-Matthews Lumber Co., 146 Ga. 750 (3) (92 S. E. 281); Bank of Norwood v. Chapman, 19 Ga. App. 709 (3) (92 S. E. 225).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment is'

Affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Arnold v. Mitchell, 99 S.E. 135, 23 Ga. App. 658, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 267 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

99 S.E. 135 (Arnold v. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment is'

Related