Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Amerson

91 S.E. 999, 19 Ga. App. 591, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 242
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 20, 1917
Docket7801
StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 999 (Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Amerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Amerson, 91 S.E. 999, 19 Ga. App. 591, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 242 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Grounds of a motion for new trial not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned.

2. The evidence of the witness Wells was not inadmissible for the reason stated in the motion for a new trial. Where a lengthy extract from the evidence was objected to as a whole and on several grounds, and some of it was admissible, the objection to the whole was properly overruled. Great Southern &c. Co. v. Guthrie, 13 Ga. App. 288, 292 (79 S. E. 162).

3. There was evidence sufficient to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Related

Great Southern Accident & Fidelity Co. v. Guthrie
79 S.E. 162 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E. 999, 19 Ga. App. 591, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-merchants-bank-v-amerson-gactapp-1917.