Flanigan v. Armour Fertilizer Works
120 S.E. 646, 31 Ga. App. 339, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 938
Opinion
In this action upon a promissory note covering the purchase price of fertilizer, the defendant at the trial admitted the execution of the note. The record shows that all the evidence offered to sustain his plea was excluded. There are no exceptions to such exclusion, and the motion for a new trial is limited to the general grounds and an exception to the direction of a verdict for the plaintiff. The verdict being demanded and no question of law arising, the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Flanigan v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 120 S.E. 646, 31 Ga. App. 339, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 938 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).
120 S.E. 646 (Flanigan v. Armour Fertilizer Works) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Whitmer Co. v. Sheffield
181 S.E. 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Brilliant Coal Co. v. Gandy
180 S.E. 379 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)