Collins v. Mobile Fruit & Trading Co.

32 S.E. 667, 108 Ga. 752, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 338
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 17, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 S.E. 667 (Collins v. Mobile Fruit & Trading Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 S.E. 667, 108 Ga. 752, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-mobile-fruit-trading-co-ga-1899.