Elrod v. Sutton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Elrod v. Sutton

164 S.E. 682, 174 Ga. 900, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 167

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 16, 1932·No. No. 8786·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

The motion for a new trial in this ease contains only the usual general grounds; and there being sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, the court below did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, G. J., and Atkinson, Hill and Gilbert, JJ., concur. B. F. Whelchel, W. P. Whelchel, and B. P. Gaillard Jr., for plaintiff in error. Hammond Johnson, B. W. Smith Jr., and Alex. M. Hitz, contra.

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

Beck, P. J.

The motion for a new trial in this ease contains only the usual general grounds; and there being sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, the court below did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, G. J., and Atkinson, Hill and Gilbert, JJ., concur. B. F. Whelchel, W. P. Whelchel, and B. P. Gaillard Jr., for plaintiff in error. Hammond Johnson, B. W. Smith Jr., and Alex. M. Hitz, contra.

Elrod v. Sutton, 164 S.E. 682, 174 Ga. 900, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 167 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

164 S.E. 682 (Elrod v. Sutton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related