Hilson v. Beardsley

24 S.E. 134, 97 Ga. 399
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 20, 1896
StatusPublished

This text of 24 S.E. 134 (Hilson v. Beardsley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hilson v. Beardsley, 24 S.E. 134, 97 Ga. 399 (Ga. 1896).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

After due examination and consideration of the record, and taking into view the full history of this case as thereby disclosed, it does not appear that any substantial or material error was committed at the trial. The controlling questions of law having been settled by the former decision of [400]*400this court in this case (94 Ga. 50), it is not now deemed necessary to formulate into distinct and separate propositions the legal principles involved. Though the evidence upon the main issue of fact may have been somewhat stronger for the plaintiff at the last than at the next preceding trial, the evidence as a whole warranted the jury in finding against her upon this issue, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. Judgment affirmed,.

January 20, 1896. Equitable petition. Before Judge Lumpkin. Eulton superior court. March term, 1895. Hall & Hammond, for plaintiff. Arnold & Arnold and A. H. Cox, for defendants.

Gross-Mil dismissed.

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

Related

Beardsley v. Hilson
20 S.E. 272 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 S.E. 134, 97 Ga. 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilson-v-beardsley-ga-1896.