Bank of Waynesboro v. Herrington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bank of Waynesboro v. Herrington

123 S.E. 750, 32 Ga. App. 403, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 422

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1924

Docket15430

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 750 (Bank of Waynesboro v. Herrington) 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

Bank of Waynesboro v. Herrington, 123 S.E. 750, 32 Ga. App. 403, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 422 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyle's, C. J.

1. The judgment upon a demurrer cannot be the basis of a motion for a new trial, and the ground of the motion in the instant case complaining of the overruling of a demurrer to the petition cannot be entertained.

2. Grounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of stated testimony over objection, cannot be considered, as it is not stated in any of the grounds what the objections were that were made at the time of the admission of the testimony. Steed v. Cruise, 70 Ga. 168 (5), 176 (5); Morgan County Bank v. Poullain, 157 Ga. 423 (121 S. E. 813 (4), 815 (4)).

3. When the alleged errors of commission and omission in the charge of the court are considered in the light of the charge as a whole and of all the facts of the case, none of them requires a reversal of the judgment below.

4. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant bank had sold his third interest in an insurance company to P. W. Thompson for one thousand dollars, and his suit was for the recovery of that sum, which was awarded to him by the verdict. One ground of the motion for a new trial was as follows: “That the evidence in the case, as shown by testimony of P. W. Thompson, witness for plaintiff, and the party alleged to have purchased the interest of plaintiff from the defendant bank, as well as the notes executed by said Thompson, and the entries from the cash-book of the Bank of Waynesboro, all of which were offered in evidence by the plaintiff, showed conclusively that the said Thompson only purchased and paid to the Bank of Waynesboro the sum of $500, and not $1,000, for a one-sixth interest in an insurance agency. Therefore the recovery for the plaintiff, under their evidence, could not have been for more than $500, instead of $1,000, the amount stated in the verdict of the jury.-” There was some evidence which authorized the jury to find that the defendant bank eventually received all of the thousand dollars which Thompson paid for the third interest in the company.

5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the over[405]*405ruling of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworbh, <717., concur.

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

Broyle's, C. J.

1. The judgment upon a demurrer cannot be the basis of a motion for a new trial, and the ground of the motion in the instant case complaining of the overruling of a demurrer to the petition cannot be entertained.

2. Grounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of stated testimony over objection, cannot be considered, as it is not stated in any of the grounds what the objections were that were made at the time of the admission of the testimony. Steed v. Cruise, 70 Ga. 168 (5), 176 (5); Morgan County Bank v. Poullain, 157 Ga. 423 (121 S. E. 813 (4), 815 (4)).

3. When the alleged errors of commission and omission in the charge of the court are considered in the light of the charge as a whole and of all the facts of the case, none of them requires a reversal of the judgment below.

4. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant bank had sold his third interest in an insurance company to P. W. Thompson for one thousand dollars, and his suit was for the recovery of that sum, which was awarded to him by the verdict. One ground of the motion for a new trial was as follows: “That the evidence in the case, as shown by testimony of P. W. Thompson, witness for plaintiff, and the party alleged to have purchased the interest of plaintiff from the defendant bank, as well as the notes executed by said Thompson, and the entries from the cash-book of the Bank of Waynesboro, all of which were offered in evidence by the plaintiff, showed conclusively that the said Thompson only purchased and paid to the Bank of Waynesboro the sum of $500, and not $1,000, for a one-sixth interest in an insurance agency. Therefore the recovery for the plaintiff, under their evidence, could not have been for more than $500, instead of $1,000, the amount stated in the verdict of the jury.-” There was some evidence which authorized the jury to find that the defendant bank eventually received all of the thousand dollars which Thompson paid for the third interest in the company.

5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the over[405]*405ruling of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworbh, <717., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 750, 32 Ga. App. 403, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-waynesboro-v-herrington-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack