Cartledge v. Brandon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cartledge v. Brandon

93 S.E. 240, 20 Ga. App. 738, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1061

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 3, 1917

Docket8734

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E. 240 (Cartledge v. Brandon) 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

Cartledge v. Brandon, 93 S.E. 240, 20 Ga. App. 738, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1061 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

When this case was before the Supreme Court (Cartledge v. Beago, 141 Ga. 113, 80 S. E. 290), it was held that under the evidence submitted, the return of the proeessioners was not according to the statute (Civil Code of 1910, § 3818 et seq.), and that the verdict in favor of the applicants was contrary to law and the evidence; and the judgment of the lower court was accordingly reversed. On the subsequent trial, now under review, there was some evidence which authorized the jury’s finding that the line established by the processioners was the correct line; and, this finding having been approved by the trial judge, and the motion for a new trial containing only the usual general grounds, this court has no authority to control the discretion of the judge in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

When this case was before the Supreme Court (Cartledge v. Beago, 141 Ga. 113, 80 S. E. 290), it was held that under the evidence submitted, the return of the proeessioners was not according to the statute (Civil Code of 1910, § 3818 et seq.), and that the verdict in favor of the applicants was contrary to law and the evidence; and the judgment of the lower court was accordingly reversed. On the subsequent trial, now under review, there was some evidence which authorized the jury’s finding that the line established by the processioners was the correct line; and, this finding having been approved by the trial judge, and the motion for a new trial containing only the usual general grounds, this court has no authority to control the discretion of the judge in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 240, 20 Ga. App. 738, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cartledge-v-brandon-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack