Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Hill v. Overstreet

Hill v. Overstreet

113 S.E. 41, 28 Ga. App. 786, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 861
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 24, 1922
Docket12637
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 41 (Hill v. Overstreet) 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
Hill v. Overstreet, 113 S.E. 41, 28 Ga. App. 786, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 861 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Opinion

Stephen,s, J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence being in the nature of extrajudicial statements by one of the parties, made in' casual conversation, and not favored as ground for a new trial (Erskine v. Duffy, 70 Ga. 602 (5), 611), and besides, being merely cumulative and impeaching and likely on another trial to produce a different result, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant’s motion 'for a new trial based upon this ground.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict rendered.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., concurs. Complaint; from Pulaski superior court — Judge Graham. May 21, 1921. Marion Turner, for plaintiff in error. H. F. Lawson, contra.

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

Related

Jones v. Knightstown Body Co.
184 S.E. 427 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 S.E. 41, 28 Ga. App. 786, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-overstreet-gactapp-1922.