Godwin v. Albany Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Godwin v. Albany Fertilizer Co.

25 S.E. 181, 99 Ga. 180

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 181 (Godwin v. Albany Fertilizer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Godwin v. Albany Fertilizer Co., 25 S.E. 181, 99 Ga. 180 (Ga. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J

—As

a finding for the plaintiff to the full amount sued for would have been warranted if the jury had accepted the version of the evidence most favorable to that side of the case, and as the verdict was for a less amount, this court will not disturb it after its approval by the trial judge, there being no complaint that any error of law was committed. Even if it was a compromise verdict, this alone is not cause for setting it aside.

Judgment afflrmed.

Wooten <& Wooten, for plaintiff in error. D. II. Pope, contra.-

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

Lumpkin, J

—As

a finding for the plaintiff to the full amount sued for would have been warranted if the jury had accepted the version of the evidence most favorable to that side of the case, and as the verdict was for a less amount, this court will not disturb it after its approval by the trial judge, there being no complaint that any error of law was committed. Even if it was a compromise verdict, this alone is not cause for setting it aside.

Judgment afflrmed.

Wooten <& Wooten, for plaintiff in error. D. II. Pope, contra.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E. 181, 99 Ga. 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-albany-fertilizer-co-ga-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack