Bearo v. Ellis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bearo v. Ellis

6 S.E.2d 128, 61 Ga. App. 366, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 299

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 21, 1939

Docket27642.

StatusPublished

This text of 6 S.E.2d 128 (Bearo v. Ellis) 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

Bearo v. Ellis, 6 S.E.2d 128, 61 Ga. App. 366, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 299 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

The bill of exceptions recites that on the trial of this case, and after the introduction of evidence, the jury, by direction of the court, rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment thereon was awarded. The direction of the verdict was not assigned as error, either in the bill of exceptions or in the motion for new trial. Therefore the only question for the determination of this court is whether the verdict was authorized by the evidence; but that question is presented by the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions that the overruling of the motion for new trial was contrary to law; and the motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied. The motion for new trial embraces the general grounds only, and an examination of the brief of the evidence discloses that the verdict rendered was amply authorized.’

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, O. J.

The bill of exceptions recites that on the trial of this case, and after the introduction of evidence, the jury, by direction of the court, rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment thereon was awarded. The direction of the verdict was not assigned as error, either in the bill of exceptions or in the motion for new trial. Therefore the only question for the determination of this court is whether the verdict was authorized by the evidence; but that question is presented by the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions that the overruling of the motion for new trial was contrary to law; and the motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied. The motion for new trial embraces the general grounds only, and an examination of the brief of the evidence discloses that the verdict rendered was amply authorized.’

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.E.2d 128, 61 Ga. App. 366, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearo-v-ellis-gactapp-1939.