Eldorado Jewelry Co. v. Hitchcock & Camp

70 S.E. 658, 136 Ga. 22, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 399
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 3, 1911·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. A refusal to strike the answer of a defendant, on motion, furnishes no proper ground of a motion for a new trial. Hawkins v. Studdard, 132 Ga. 265 (63 S. E. 852, 131 Am. St. Rep. 190).

2. Under the record before us, none of the grounds of the motion for a new trial require a reversal for any reason assigned."

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Eldorado Jewelry Co. v. Hitchcock & Camp, 70 S.E. 658, 136 Ga. 22, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 399 (Ga. 1911).

70 S.E. 658 (Eldorado Jewelry Co. v. Hitchcock & Camp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Byrd v. Grace
158 S.E. 467 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Battle v. Holmes
91 S.E. 32 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros.
90 S.E. 1037 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Tompkins v. American Land Co.
77 S.E. 623 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)