Holliday v. New Winder Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holliday v. New Winder Lumber Co.

162 S.E. 290, 44 Ga. App. 568, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 379

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1932

Docket21937

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.E. 290 (Holliday v. New Winder Lumber Co.) 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

Holliday v. New Winder Lumber Co., 162 S.E. 290, 44 Ga. App. 568, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 379 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied, since it contains a good assignment of error upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. However, only the general grounds of the motion for a new trial will be considered. (See next paragraph.)

[569]*569Decided January 12, 1932. George W. Westmoreland, for plaintiff in error. Bollin H. Kimball, contra.

2. All Hie grounds of the amendment to tile motion for a new trial complain of rulings made upon the pleadings (sustaining a demurrer to the defendant’s answer and disallowing amendments to the answer). Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, exceptions to such rulings can not be made in a motion for a new trial, and, when so made, will not be considered by the appellate courts.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

■Judgment affirmed,.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of Him ess.

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