Barnhill v. Browning

Supreme Court of Georgia

Barnhill v. Browning

119 S.E. 526, 156 Ga. 307, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 242

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 7, 1923·No. No. 3524·Published

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The evidence being conflicting, and tlie jury having found in favor of the defendant, the judge of the lower court did not err in overruling a motion for new trial based upon the general grounds.

2. The amendment to the motion for a new trial was not approved by the judge of the lower court, and is not supported as required by section 6086 of the Civil Code, and therefore can not be considered.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. William B. Kent, for plaintiff. A. G. Saffold and J. P. Tomlinson, for defendant.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. The evidence being conflicting, and tlie jury having found in favor of the defendant, the judge of the lower court did not err in overruling a motion for new trial based upon the general grounds.

2. The amendment to the motion for a new trial was not approved by the judge of the lower court, and is not supported as required by section 6086 of the Civil Code, and therefore can not be considered.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. William B. Kent, for plaintiff. A. G. Saffold and J. P. Tomlinson, for defendant.

Barnhill v. Browning, 119 S.E. 526, 156 Ga. 307, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 242 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

119 S.E. 526 (Barnhill v. Browning) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.