Council Bros. v. International Agricultural Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Council Bros. v. International Agricultural Corp.

164 S.E. 94, 45 Ga. App. 158, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 206

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 29, 1932

Docket21719

StatusPublished

This text of 164 S.E. 94 (Council Bros. v. International Agricultural Corp.) 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

Council Bros. v. International Agricultural Corp., 164 S.E. 94, 45 Ga. App. 158, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 206 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Exception is taken by Council Brothers, a copartnership, and H. S. Council individually, to a judgment of the city court of Americus, overruling their motion for a new trial, in an action on a promissory note, brought against them by International Agricultural Corporation.

Since the general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, no consideration has been given to them.

The special grounds of the amendment to the motion that are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 do not meet the requirement that such grounds must be complete and understandable within themselves, without reference to any other part of the record. See Dees v. State, 41 Ga. App. 321 (5) (152 S. E. 913).

The refusal of the trial court to allow an amendment to an answer, assigned as error in special ground 5, is not a proper ground of a motion for a new trial. Hendricks v. Georgia Fertilizer Co., 40 Ga. App. 427 (3) (149 S. E. 711).

No error appears in the judgment of the trial court herein complained of.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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