Edgar Casket Co. v. McNeely-Lipscomb Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Edgar Casket Co. v. McNeely-Lipscomb Co.

194 S.E. 359, 185 Ga. 192, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 698

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 30, 1937

DocketNo. 11929

StatusPublished

This text of 194 S.E. 359 (Edgar Casket Co. v. McNeely-Lipscomb Co.) 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

Edgar Casket Co. v. McNeely-Lipscomb Co., 194 S.E. 359, 185 Ga. 192, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 698 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. The exception is to a judgment overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds, and upon the further ground that the judge erred in directing the verdict in part against the plaintiffs, because, in so far as the verdict was against plaintiffs, there were issues of fact under the pleadings and evidence which should have been submitted to the jury. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial were elaborative upon that question. There was no complaint of any error of law committed on the trial, other than as indicated above.

2. A careful consideration of all the pleadings, the evidence, and the - briefs of the attorneys reveals no error in' overruling the motion for new trial for any reason stated in any of the several grounds. •

Judgment affirmed.

All -the Justices conoar.

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

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. The exception is to a judgment overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds, and upon the further ground that the judge erred in directing the verdict in part against the plaintiffs, because, in so far as the verdict was against plaintiffs, there were issues of fact under the pleadings and evidence which should have been submitted to the jury. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial were elaborative upon that question. There was no complaint of any error of law committed on the trial, other than as indicated above.

2. A careful consideration of all the pleadings, the evidence, and the - briefs of the attorneys reveals no error in' overruling the motion for new trial for any reason stated in any of the several grounds. •

Judgment affirmed.

All -the Justices conoar.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E. 359, 185 Ga. 192, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgar-casket-co-v-mcneely-lipscomb-co-ga-1937.