Durden v. Harper

Supreme Court of Georgia

Durden v. Harper

163 S.E. 192, 174 Ga. 570, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 92

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 5, 1932

DocketNo. 8309

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 163 S.E. 192 (Durden v. Harper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durden v. Harper, 163 S.E. 192, 174 Ga. 570, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 92 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

In this case the defendant in an action of complaint for land comes by direct bill of exceptions complaining of the verdict and assigning error in the refusal of certain requests to charge, and in directing the verdict for the plaintiffs, as to certain issues involved. There is no assignment of error on the final judgment that was entered upon the verdict. Moreover, “Where a case has been tried by a jury and a verdict rendered therein, and the losing party desires to test the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, a motion for a new trial is indispensable.” Beall v. Mineral Tone Co., 167 Ca. 667 (146 S. E. 473). Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur. J. O. Webb, W. W. Dykes, and B. P. Jackson, for plaintiff in error. G. W. Lankford and IT. T. Burkhalter, contra.

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

Atkinson, J.

In this case the defendant in an action of complaint for land comes by direct bill of exceptions complaining of the verdict and assigning error in the refusal of certain requests to charge, and in directing the verdict for the plaintiffs, as to certain issues involved. There is no assignment of error on the final judgment that was entered upon the verdict. Moreover, “Where a case has been tried by a jury and a verdict rendered therein, and the losing party desires to test the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, a motion for a new trial is indispensable.” Beall v. Mineral Tone Co., 167 Ca. 667 (146 S. E. 473). Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur. J. O. Webb, W. W. Dykes, and B. P. Jackson, for plaintiff in error. G. W. Lankford and IT. T. Burkhalter, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 192, 174 Ga. 570, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durden-v-harper-ga-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack