Dimond v. Shackelford

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dimond v. Shackelford

129 S.E. 22, 34 Ga. App. 137, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 75

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 9, 1925

Docket16374

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.E. 22 (Dimond v. Shackelford) 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

Dimond v. Shackelford, 129 S.E. 22, 34 Ga. App. 137, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 75 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The court did not err in any of the rulings relating to the pleadings, of which error is alleged in the exceptions pendente lite.

[138]*138Decided June 9, 1925. Rehearing denied July 14, 1925. W. I. & P. Z. Geer, for plaintiff in error. J. Q. Hale, contra.

2. None of fclie special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows any reason why. the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.

3'. A verdict for the full amount sued for was properly directed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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