Cone v. Wall

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cone v. Wall

139 S.E. 2, 164 Ga. 550, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 222

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 16, 1927·No. No. 5656·Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

There is no substantial error in the charge of the court complained of. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Appeal and Error, 4 O. J. p. 852, n. 56; p. 1130, n. 63.

Ejectment, 19 C. J. p. 1178, n. 30.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. J. G. Murphy and George B. Rush, for plaintiff in error. P. K. Burns and J. J. Barge, contra.

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

Hill, J.

There is no substantial error in the charge of the court complained of. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Appeal and Error, 4 O. J. p. 852, n. 56; p. 1130, n. 63.

Ejectment, 19 C. J. p. 1178, n. 30.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. J. G. Murphy and George B. Rush, for plaintiff in error. P. K. Burns and J. J. Barge, contra.

Cone v. Wall, 139 S.E. 2, 164 Ga. 550, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 222 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

139 S.E. 2 (Cone v. Wall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.