Daniels v. Hartley
This text of 170 S.E.2d 315 (Daniels v. Hartley) 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.
Opinion
This appeal is from the judgment denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial. The motion was based solely on the general grounds. Thus, the only query is whether the evidence supported the verdict. Southern R. Co. v. Adams, 14 Ga. App. 366 (80 SE 912); Brown v. Bank of Cumming, 144 Ga. 655 (87 SE 887). And see the host of annotations in *295 Code § 70-202, catchwords “General Grounds,” “Approval,” etc. There is in the transcript evidence which if believed by the jury was quite sufficient to have authorized the verdict. It is, of course, of no moment that the evidence would also have authorized a verdict in some amount for the plaintiff. The jury weighed the evidence and made its choice. That was its duty and its function.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
170 S.E.2d 315, 120 Ga. App. 294, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-hartley-gactapp-1969.