Hendricks v. Torrence

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hendricks v. Torrence

95 S.E. 309, 22 Ga. App. 95, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 167

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1918

Docket9277

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 309 (Hendricks v. Torrence) 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

Hendricks v. Torrence, 95 S.E. 309, 22 Ga. App. 95, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 167 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

The contract which formed the basis of the suit was plain and unambiguous, and capable only of the construction given it by the court. There is therefore no merit in the various special grounds of the motion for a new trial, and the verdict returned was demanded. The statutory damages of ten per cent., for bringing up the case for delay, are hereby awarded against the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins and Luhe, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

The contract which formed the basis of the suit was plain and unambiguous, and capable only of the construction given it by the court. There is therefore no merit in the various special grounds of the motion for a new trial, and the verdict returned was demanded. The statutory damages of ten per cent., for bringing up the case for delay, are hereby awarded against the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins and Luhe, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 309, 22 Ga. App. 95, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendricks-v-torrence-gactapp-1918.