Beavers v. Howell

140 S.E. 525, 37 Ga. App. 351, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 672
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 16, 1927
Docket18321
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 525 (Beavers v. Howell) 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
Beavers v. Howell, 140 S.E. 525, 37 Ga. App. 351, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 672 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Brovles, C. J.

1. None of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial (many of them too incomplete within themselves to be considered) shows cause for a reversal of the judgment below.

2. There was some evidence authorizing the verdict, and, the finding of the jui’y having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. James A. Fori, for plaintiff in error. Zach. Childers, contra.

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

Related

People v. Rivera Palmer
51 P.R. 702 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1937)
Pueblo v. Rivera Palmer
51 P.R. Dec. 725 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 S.E. 525, 37 Ga. App. 351, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beavers-v-howell-gactapp-1927.