Hicks v. Brown Estate

145 S.E. 99, 38 Ga. App. 659, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 374
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 2, 1928·No. 19052·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. There being evidence to support the verdict rendered, this court can not say that the trial judge erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. There being no assignment in the final bill of exceptions either upon- the exceptions pendente lite or upon the rulings excepted to therein, no question is presented for decision under the exceptions pendente lite. Ga. L. 1921, p. 232 (Michie’s Code (1926), § 6139 (1)); Alexander v. Chipstead, 152 Ga. 851 (111 S. E. 552); House v. American Discount Co., 31 Ga. App. 396 (120 S. E. 701); Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 34 Ga. App. 555 (130 S. E. 378); Carter v. Vanlandingham, 37 Ga. App. 642 (141 S. E. 429).

3. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no reversible error. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Hicks v. Brown Estate, 145 S.E. 99, 38 Ga. App. 659, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 374 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

145 S.E. 99 (Hicks v. Brown Estate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Browning v. Farmers Bank
165 S.E. 130 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Bolton v. State
159 S.E. 910 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Coleman v. State
158 S.E. 627 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Edenfield v. State
152 S.E. 597 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)