Bancroft v. Sewell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bancroft v. Sewell

199 S.E. 649, 58 Ga. App. 592, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 62

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 1, 1938·No. 27005·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The assignment of error on the overruling of the general demurrer to the petition, not having been argued or insisted on in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

2. The overruling of the special demurrers to the petition was not harmful error.

3. This was an action for damages based on the alleged breach of an oral contract. The amount of the damages was alleged to be $14,437.50; and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1000. The verdict was authorized, though not demanded, by the evidence; and none of the grounds of the motion for new trial shows cause for reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Ouerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The assignment of error on the overruling of the general demurrer to the petition, not having been argued or insisted on in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

2. The overruling of the special demurrers to the petition was not harmful error.

3. This was an action for damages based on the alleged breach of an oral contract. The amount of the damages was alleged to be $14,437.50; and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1000. The verdict was authorized, though not demanded, by the evidence; and none of the grounds of the motion for new trial shows cause for reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Ouerry, JJ., concur.

Bancroft v. Sewell, 199 S.E. 649, 58 Ga. App. 592, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

199 S.E. 649 (Bancroft v. Sewell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.