Hewitt v. Hinson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hewitt v. Hinson

148 S.E. 919, 40 Ga. App. 149, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 57

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 9, 1929

Docket19764

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 919 (Hewitt v. Hinson) 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

Hewitt v. Hinson, 148 S.E. 919, 40 Ga. App. 149, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, where a verdict is directed and the losing party excepts to the overruling of his motion for a new trial but does not complain, either in the bill of exceptions or in the motion for a new trial, of the direction of the verdict, the reviewing court will consider, in this connection, only the question as to whether the verdict is supported by the evidence.” Watson v. Kvaternik Export Stave Co., 31 Ga. App. 146 (2) (121 S. E. 126); Head v. Towaliga Falls Power Co., 27 Ga. App. 142 (107 S. E. 558); Moore v. Butler, 150 Ga. 154 (3) (103 S. E. 154); Kelley v. Cartledge, 151 Ga. 179 (106 S. E. 93).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff.

3. Hot being fully convinced that the case was brought to this court for delay only, the request of the defendant in error, that damages be assessed under section 6215 of the Civil Code, is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, where a verdict is directed and the losing party excepts to the overruling of his motion for a new trial but does not complain, either in the bill of exceptions or in the motion for a new trial, of the direction of the verdict, the reviewing court will consider, in this connection, only the question as to whether the verdict is supported by the evidence.” Watson v. Kvaternik Export Stave Co., 31 Ga. App. 146 (2) (121 S. E. 126); Head v. Towaliga Falls Power Co., 27 Ga. App. 142 (107 S. E. 558); Moore v. Butler, 150 Ga. 154 (3) (103 S. E. 154); Kelley v. Cartledge, 151 Ga. 179 (106 S. E. 93).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff.

3. Hot being fully convinced that the case was brought to this court for delay only, the request of the defendant in error, that damages be assessed under section 6215 of the Civil Code, is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 919, 40 Ga. App. 149, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-v-hinson-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack