Bank of Hillsboro v. Swindle

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

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.