Epperson v. Stancill

Supreme Court of Georgia

Epperson v. Stancill

181 S.E. 170, 180 Ga. 857, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 584

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 7, 1935·No. No. 10733·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Beok, Presiding Justice.

1. The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Sill v. Sill, 149 Ga. 50 (99 S. E. 31) ; Landrum v. Rivers, 148 Ga. 774 (98 S. E. 477).

2. Tile portions of the charge excepted to were not erroneous on the grounds taken in the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. F. M. Gleason, for plaintiff. M. L. Harris, for defendant.'

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

Beok, Presiding Justice.

1. The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Sill v. Sill, 149 Ga. 50 (99 S. E. 31) ; Landrum v. Rivers, 148 Ga. 774 (98 S. E. 477).

2. Tile portions of the charge excepted to were not erroneous on the grounds taken in the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. F. M. Gleason, for plaintiff. M. L. Harris, for defendant.'

Epperson v. Stancill, 181 S.E. 170, 180 Ga. 857, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 584 (Ga. 1935).

Pincite

181 S.E. 170 (Epperson v. Stancill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related