Collins v. Mobile Fruit & Trading Co.

32 S.E. 667, 108 Ga. 752, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 338
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 17, 1899·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

This case presents no question of law, and no error is alleged except the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial. The evidence, though conflicting, fully warranted the verdict, and the trial judge was satisfied with the same. In view of the long-established and unvarying rule applicable in such cases, there was no good reason for anticipating a reversal of the judgment below, and consequently the case must have been brought to this court for the purpose of delay only. Accordingly, on motion of counsel for defendant in error, ten per cent, damages are awarded in its favor against the plaintiffs in- error. In future this court will in similar cases award damages for delay, whether asked for or not.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Collins v. Mobile Fruit & Trading Co., 32 S.E. 667, 108 Ga. 752, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 338 (Ga. 1899).

32 S.E. 667 (Collins v. Mobile Fruit & Trading Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rahal v. Titus
138 S.E.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Boggs v. Shadburn
16 S.E.2d 234 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Phillips v. Blackwell
144 S.E. 319 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Kessler v. Hecht
48 S.E. 922 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Southern Railway Co. v. Hooper
36 S.E. 232 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)