Bugg v. Overstreet

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bugg v. Overstreet

125 S.E. 734, 33 Ga. App. 169, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 798

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1924

Docket15960

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.E. 734 (Bugg v. Overstreet) 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

Bugg v. Overstreet, 125 S.E. 734, 33 Ga. App. 169, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 798 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The ground based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, must be treated as abandoned.

The evidence authorized the verdict, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial requires another hearing of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. W. B. Bennel, Brie B. Askew, for plaintiff in error. J. S. Ridgdill, R. D. Smith, contra.

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

Luke, J.

The ground based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, must be treated as abandoned.

The evidence authorized the verdict, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial requires another hearing of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. W. B. Bennel, Brie B. Askew, for plaintiff in error. J. S. Ridgdill, R. D. Smith, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 734, 33 Ga. App. 169, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bugg-v-overstreet-gactapp-1924.