Barnhill v. Browning

Supreme Court of Georgia

Barnhill v. Browning

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

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 7, 1923

DocketNo. 3524

StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.E. 526 (Barnhill v. Browning) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 526, 156 Ga. 307, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnhill-v-browning-ga-1923.