Easterling v. Cowart
This text of 99 S.E. 301 (Easterling v. Cowart) 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.
Opinion
If the attack made upon the constitutionality of section 20 of the act approved March 28, 1917 (Acts Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 16), should be construed as a demurrer to the proceedings based upon that statute, there is no direct exception to the overruling of such demurrer. Nor [162]*162can tlie exception to the overruling of such demurrer be made a ground of a motion for new trial.
2. The ground complaining that the. court erred in refusing, on motion, to direct, a. verdict, the motion being based upon attacks upon the constitutionality of the act referred to above, is without merit, because, as has been .ruled more than once, this court will not reverse the judgment of a trial court for refusing to direct a verdict. Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co., 146 Ga. 157 (4), 160 (91 S. E. 32).
3. The remaining grounds of the motion for new trial show no cause for reversal.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
99 S.E. 301, 149 Ga. 161, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/easterling-v-cowart-ga-1919.