Duggan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Duggan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

164 S.E. 415, 45 Ga. App. 256, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 272

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 10, 1932

Docket22112

StatusPublished

This text of 164 S.E. 415 (Duggan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) 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

Duggan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 164 S.E. 415, 45 Ga. App. 256, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 272 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

In a suit by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against David E. Duggan for the recovery of the balance due on a promissory note, after all the evidence in behalf of the parties had been introduced, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant’s motion for a new trial having been overruled, the movant excepted.

Beyond doubt, as we think, the evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Hence the general grounds of the motion for a new trial, as well as the second special ground, which is general in its nature, were properly overruled. The other special ground of the motion presents no question for decision by this court, since it is not complete and understandable within itself.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Jenleins, P. J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

In a suit by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against David E. Duggan for the recovery of the balance due on a promissory note, after all the evidence in behalf of the parties had been introduced, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant’s motion for a new trial having been overruled, the movant excepted.

Beyond doubt, as we think, the evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Hence the general grounds of the motion for a new trial, as well as the second special ground, which is general in its nature, were properly overruled. The other special ground of the motion presents no question for decision by this court, since it is not complete and understandable within itself.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Jenleins, P. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 415, 45 Ga. App. 256, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duggan-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-gactapp-1932.