Georgia Creosoting Co. v. Keene

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Creosoting Co. v. Keene

159 S.E. 133, 43 Ga. App. 392, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 387

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 9, 1931

Docket21341

StatusPublished

This text of 159 S.E. 133 (Georgia Creosoting Co. v. Keene) 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

Georgia Creosoting Co. v. Keene, 159 S.E. 133, 43 Ga. App. 392, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 387 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, G. J.

Upon conflicting evidence, which would have authorized a finding for either party, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount sued for; and that finding having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Tuuke, J., concurs. Bloodioorlh, J., absent on account of illness. B. D. Meacler, for plaintiff in error.- Joseph B. Hand, Conyers & Gowen, contra.

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

Broyles, G. J.

Upon conflicting evidence, which would have authorized a finding for either party, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount sued for; and that finding having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Tuuke, J., concurs. Bloodioorlh, J., absent on account of illness. B. D. Meacler, for plaintiff in error.- Joseph B. Hand, Conyers & Gowen, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E. 133, 43 Ga. App. 392, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-creosoting-co-v-keene-gactapp-1931.