Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones

102 S.E. 372, 24 Ga. App. 810, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 535

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1920

Docket11091

StatusPublished

This text of 102 S.E. 372 (Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones) 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

Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones, 102 S.E. 372, 24 Ga. App. 810, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 535 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

This case is here upon the general ground that the evidence does not authorize the verdict, the special ground being without merit and having been virtually abandoned in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. The plaintiff’s evidence amply authorizes, if it does not demand, a verdict in his favor. The evidence of the defendant likewise is as strong in its favor.' The record shows there have been two trials of the case. On the first trial a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and on the second trial a like verdict was rendered. The court granted the defendant a new trial in the first instance, and refused a new trial in the second instance. The judge unqualifiedly approved the verdict upon the second trial, in the exercise of his discretion, by overruling the motion for a new trial. Where the only question raised by a motion for á new trial is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and where there is evidence to authorize the verdict, and the finding of the jury is approved by the trial court, this court under the uniform rulings .of the Supreme Court and of this court must affirm the judgment overruling the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

This case is here upon the general ground that the evidence does not authorize the verdict, the special ground being without merit and having been virtually abandoned in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. The plaintiff’s evidence amply authorizes, if it does not demand, a verdict in his favor. The evidence of the defendant likewise is as strong in its favor.' The record shows there have been two trials of the case. On the first trial a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and on the second trial a like verdict was rendered. The court granted the defendant a new trial in the first instance, and refused a new trial in the second instance. The judge unqualifiedly approved the verdict upon the second trial, in the exercise of his discretion, by overruling the motion for a new trial. Where the only question raised by a motion for á new trial is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and where there is evidence to authorize the verdict, and the finding of the jury is approved by the trial court, this court under the uniform rulings .of the Supreme Court and of this court must affirm the judgment overruling the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 372, 24 Ga. App. 810, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-banking-co-v-jones-gactapp-1920.