Hines v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hines v. Smith

108 S.E. 818, 27 Ga. App. 406, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 931

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 6, 1921·No. 12335·Published

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Of the special grounds of the motion for new trial approved by the trial judge none is definite enough to present anything for adjudication by this court.

2. “No error of law is pointed out, the verdict has the approval of the trial judge, there is some evidence authorizing the verdict, and, under repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.” Perdue v. Hurst, 24 Ga. App. 239 (2) (100 S. E. 647).

Judgment affivrmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Of the special grounds of the motion for new trial approved by the trial judge none is definite enough to present anything for adjudication by this court.

2. “No error of law is pointed out, the verdict has the approval of the trial judge, there is some evidence authorizing the verdict, and, under repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.” Perdue v. Hurst, 24 Ga. App. 239 (2) (100 S. E. 647).

Judgment affivrmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Hines v. Smith, 108 S.E. 818, 27 Ga. App. 406, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 931 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

108 S.E. 818 (Hines v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related