Bank of Hillsboro v. Swindle

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bank of Hillsboro v. Swindle

116 S.E. 317, 155 Ga. 75, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1923

DocketNo. 3222

StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E. 317 (Bank of Hillsboro v. Swindle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of Hillsboro v. Swindle, 116 S.E. 317, 155 Ga. 75, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 12 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Hines, J.

There is no complaint that the trial judge committed any error of law, except in his judgment overruling the motion for new trial of the plaintiff in error; and the errors assigned on this judgment are, (I) that the court erred in an instruction to the jury, because not authorized by the evidence; ‘and (2) the verdict on this issue against the plaintiff in error is not supported by the proof. After a very careful consideration of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the court was authorized, under the facts, to give this instruction; and we think there is evidence to support the verdict, which has been approved by the trial judge. We can not say he abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Greene F. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. Gardner & Gardner, E. E. Gox, and E. M. Davis, contra.

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

Hines, J.

There is no complaint that the trial judge committed any error of law, except in his judgment overruling the motion for new trial of the plaintiff in error; and the errors assigned on this judgment are, (I) that the court erred in an instruction to the jury, because not authorized by the evidence; ‘and (2) the verdict on this issue against the plaintiff in error is not supported by the proof. After a very careful consideration of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the court was authorized, under the facts, to give this instruction; and we think there is evidence to support the verdict, which has been approved by the trial judge. We can not say he abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Greene F. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. Gardner & Gardner, E. E. Gox, and E. M. Davis, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 317, 155 Ga. 75, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-hillsboro-v-swindle-ga-1923.