Bailey v. Gardner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bailey v. Gardner

120 S.E. 704, 31 Ga. App. 292, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 894

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 5, 1923

Docket14775

StatusPublished

This text of 120 S.E. 704 (Bailey v. Gardner) 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

Bailey v. Gardner, 120 S.E. 704, 31 Ga. App. 292, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The evidence was conflicting, and the judgment will not be reversed upon the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. The grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining of alleged errors in the introduction of evidence, in the court’s charge, and of the failure to- charge, contain no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur. Albert Kemper, A. L. Henson, for plaintiff. J. G. B. Brwin, for defendant.

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

Luke, J.

1. The evidence was conflicting, and the judgment will not be reversed upon the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. The grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining of alleged errors in the introduction of evidence, in the court’s charge, and of the failure to- charge, contain no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur. Albert Kemper, A. L. Henson, for plaintiff. J. G. B. Brwin, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 704, 31 Ga. App. 292, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-gardner-gactapp-1923.