Hogg v. Truitt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hogg v. Truitt

90 S.E. 226, 18 Ga. App. 649, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1165

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 4, 1916

Docket7352

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 S.E. 226 (Hogg v. Truitt) 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

Hogg v. Truitt, 90 S.E. 226, 18 Ga. App. 649, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. In the light of the qualifying note of the trial judge, there is no merit in grounds 3 and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. As presented, there is no merit in any of the other grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence demanded the verdict directed, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

4. It appearing that the writ of error in this case must have been sued out for the purpose of delay only, the motion of the .defendant in error for the award of damages is granted. Civil Code, § 6213.

■Judgment affirmed, with damages.

Complaint; from city court of La Grange — Judge Harwell. February 10, 1916.

Meadows & Wyatt, for plaintiff in error. E. T. Moon, contra.

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