Flanders v. Vanderbilt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Flanders v. Vanderbilt

131 S.E. 114, 34 Ga. App. 672, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 472

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 15, 1925

Docket16810

StatusPublished

This text of 131 S.E. 114 (Flanders v. Vanderbilt) 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

Flanders v. Vanderbilt, 131 S.E. 114, 34 Ga. App. 672, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, 0. J.

1. The judge committed no error in his rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, and, under the facts of the case, properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa.

2. This court not being satisfied that the writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, the request of the defendant in error for the award of damages is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, 0. J.

1. The judge committed no error in his rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, and, under the facts of the case, properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa.

2. This court not being satisfied that the writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, the request of the defendant in error for the award of damages is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 114, 34 Ga. App. 672, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanders-v-vanderbilt-gactapp-1925.