Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Co. v. Grant
35 S.E. 271, 110 Ga. 328, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 432
Opinion
Inasmuch as the judge who passed upon and overruled the motion for a new trial did not preside at the trial of the ease, and as the .preponderance of the evidence was in favor of the defendant and the newly discovered evidence being not merely cumulative, but relating to new and independent facts, which may probably produce a different result upon another hearing, the ends of justice require a new trial. See as to first of above-stated reasons, Cleveland v. Treadwell, 68 Ga. 835.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Co. v. Grant, 35 S.E. 271, 110 Ga. 328, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 432 (Ga. 1900).
35 S.E. 271 (Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Co. v. Grant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Schofield v. Langley
61 S.E.2d 838 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Week v. Big Bunker Hill Mining Corp.
17 S.E.2d 825 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)