Gondolf v. Wilbank & Pierce, Inc.
161 So. 320
Opinion
The ground upon which appellant sought recovery was that appellee dug the hole in which the young man was drowned. Appel-lee denied that it dug the hole. The evidence on that issue was squarely in conflict. We do not think the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. There was no harmful error committed in the trial.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gondolf v. Wilbank & Pierce, Inc., 161 So. 320 (Mich. 1935).
161 So. 320 (Gondolf v. Wilbank & Pierce, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.