Arnold v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnold v. Mitchell

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

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1919

Docket10095

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 135 (Arnold v. Mitchell) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 135, 23 Ga. App. 658, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-mitchell-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack