Godwin v. Sanders

Supreme Court of Georgia

Godwin v. Sanders

168 S.E. 11, 176 Ga. 488, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 204

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 20, 1933

DocketNo. 9063

StatusPublished

This text of 168 S.E. 11 (Godwin v. Sanders) 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. Sanders, 168 S.E. 11, 176 Ga. 488, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 204 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon the issue made by the filing of a caveat to an application to probate a will a verdict was returned in favor of the caveatrix, after which the propounder moved for a new trial, which the court denied, and the movant excepted. The motion contained the general grounds, and a number of special grounds complaining of the admission of evidence. Upon a careful considera[489]*489tion of the record, this court is of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and that none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial disclose such error as to require a reversal of the judgment overruling it.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Russell, C. J., concurs in the result.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon the issue made by the filing of a caveat to an application to probate a will a verdict was returned in favor of the caveatrix, after which the propounder moved for a new trial, which the court denied, and the movant excepted. The motion contained the general grounds, and a number of special grounds complaining of the admission of evidence. Upon a careful considera[489]*489tion of the record, this court is of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and that none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial disclose such error as to require a reversal of the judgment overruling it.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Russell, C. J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E. 11, 176 Ga. 488, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-sanders-ga-1933.