Hill v. Overstreet

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. Overstreet

113 S.E. 41, 28 Ga. App. 786, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 861

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 24, 1922·No. 12637·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

113 S.E. 41 (Hill v. Overstreet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

2. The evidence authorized the verdict rendered.

Related