Claude Nolan Motor Co. v. Cowart

Supreme Court of Georgia

Claude Nolan Motor Co. v. Cowart

165 S.E. 9, 175 Ga. 153, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 211

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 15, 1932·No. No. 9067·Published

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. The single special ground of the motion for a new trial complains that the court erred in admitting, over timely objection, a document called “double guarantee,” shown in the statement of the ease following. Under the pleadings and the evidence this ground does not show error.

2. The verdict is supported by evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Hester & Lewis, for plaintiff in error. Frederick A. Tuten, contra.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. The single special ground of the motion for a new trial complains that the court erred in admitting, over timely objection, a document called “double guarantee,” shown in the statement of the ease following. Under the pleadings and the evidence this ground does not show error.

2. The verdict is supported by evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Hester & Lewis, for plaintiff in error. Frederick A. Tuten, contra.

Claude Nolan Motor Co. v. Cowart, 165 S.E. 9, 175 Ga. 153, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 211 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

165 S.E. 9 (Claude Nolan Motor Co. v. Cowart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.