Hicks v. Brown Estate

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hicks v. Brown Estate

145 S.E. 99, 38 Ga. App. 659, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 374

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 2, 1928

Docket19052

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 99 (Hicks v. Brown Estate) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 99, 38 Ga. App. 659, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-brown-estate-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack