Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Tifton Produce Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Tifton Produce Co.

139 S.E. 126, 37 Ga. App. 147, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 527

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 26, 1927·No. 18059·Published

Opinion

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The motion for a new trial contains no special grounds. The evidence supports the verdict, which has the approval of the judge who tried the case, and this court can not interfere.

2. The motion of the defendant in error asking for damages, on the [148]*148ground that the' ease was brought to the Court of Appeals for the purpose of delay only, is denied.

Decided July 26, 1927. J. E. Hall, C. J. Bloch, R. D. Smith, Sieve F. Miichell, for plaintiff in error. Fulwood & Forrester, J. S. Ridgdill, contra.

Judgment affin-med.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The motion for a new trial contains no special grounds. The evidence supports the verdict, which has the approval of the judge who tried the case, and this court can not interfere.

2. The motion of the defendant in error asking for damages, on the [148]*148ground that the' ease was brought to the Court of Appeals for the purpose of delay only, is denied.

Decided July 26, 1927. J. E. Hall, C. J. Bloch, R. D. Smith, Sieve F. Miichell, for plaintiff in error. Fulwood & Forrester, J. S. Ridgdill, contra.

Judgment affin-med.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Tifton Produce Co., 139 S.E. 126, 37 Ga. App. 147, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

139 S.E. 126 (Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Tifton Produce Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.