District Grand Lodge No. 18 v. Fortune
This text of 101 S.E. 314 (District Grand Lodge No. 18 v. Fortune) 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
It does not appear that the trial judge, who, without the aid of a jury, heard the traverse to the return of the sheriff, erred in finding against the traverse, since the evidence in support of the traverse did not demand a finding that the plaintiff in error had traversed the sheriff’s return of service at the first term after it had received notice thereof, as required by section 5566 of the Civil Code (1910). It follows that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
101 S.E. 314, 24 Ga. App. 315, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/district-grand-lodge-no-18-v-fortune-gactapp-1919.