Burton v. King

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burton v. King

124 S.E. 824, 32 Ga. App. 754, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 630

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 7, 1924

Docket15398

StatusPublished

This text of 124 S.E. 824 (Burton v. King) 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

Burton v. King, 124 S.E. 824, 32 Ga. App. 754, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 630 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The bill of exceptions recites that “the jury found a verdict for an amount greater than that admitted to be due by the defendant,” but the nature and amount of the verdict does not otherwise appear from the record brought to this court. The evidence authorized such a verdict. , The charge was sufficiently full and fair, and is not subject to the criticisms urged against it. For no reason assigned was it erroneous to overrule the amended motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The bill of exceptions recites that “the jury found a verdict for an amount greater than that admitted to be due by the defendant,” but the nature and amount of the verdict does not otherwise appear from the record brought to this court. The evidence authorized such a verdict. , The charge was sufficiently full and fair, and is not subject to the criticisms urged against it. For no reason assigned was it erroneous to overrule the amended motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E. 824, 32 Ga. App. 754, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-king-gactapp-1924.