Boston Dry Goods Co. v. Rosa Jarmoulowsky Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Boston Dry Goods Co. v. Rosa Jarmoulowsky Co.

152 S.E. 852, 41 Ga. App. 314, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 561

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1930

Docket20284

StatusPublished

This text of 152 S.E. 852 (Boston Dry Goods Co. v. Rosa Jarmoulowsky Co.) 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

Boston Dry Goods Co. v. Rosa Jarmoulowsky Co., 152 S.E. 852, 41 Ga. App. 314, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial is not argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and, therefore, is treated as abandoned.

2. This case was tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the judgment rendered, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial is not argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and, therefore, is treated as abandoned.

2. This case was tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the judgment rendered, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 852, 41 Ga. App. 314, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-dry-goods-co-v-rosa-jarmoulowsky-co-gactapp-1930.