Golightly v. Reeves

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Golightly v. Reeves

119 S.E. 432, 30 Ga. App. 785, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 686

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1923

Docket14568

StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.E. 432 (Golightly v. Reeves) 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

Golightly v. Reeves, 119 S.E. 432, 30 Ga. App. 785, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contains no special grounds. “ Under the facts as disclosed by the record, this court cannot say that the verdict of the jury is without support from the testimony or so far contrary to it as to authorize this court to determine that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. The law allows him to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but [786]*786it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials when errors of law have been committed, or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contains no special grounds. “ Under the facts as disclosed by the record, this court cannot say that the verdict of the jury is without support from the testimony or so far contrary to it as to authorize this court to determine that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. The law allows him to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but [786]*786it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials when errors of law have been committed, or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 432, 30 Ga. App. 785, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golightly-v-reeves-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack