Hudson v. Alford
45 S.E. 454, 118 Ga. 669, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 655
Opinion
1. “ Full payment of the fl. fa. founded on the judgment sought to-he reversed, pending a writ of error, it' not appearing that any supersedeas was sued out, is no cause for dismissing'the writ of error,'inasmuch as the defendant helow (the plaintiff in error here) would he entitled to recover the money hack in case the judgment should he reversed,” R. & D. Railroad Co. v. Buice, 88 Ga. 180.
2. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and there was no error requiring the granting of a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hudson v. Alford, 45 S.E. 454, 118 Ga. 669, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 655 (Ga. 1903).
45 S.E. 454 (Hudson v. Alford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Biederbeck v. Marbut
670 S.E.2d 483 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Imperial Body Works, Inc. v. National Claims Service, Inc.
279 S.E.2d 534 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Leonard Bros. Trucking Co. v. Crymes Transports, Inc.
183 S.E.2d 773 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
City of Gainesville v. Loggins
158 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Ford Motor Co. v. Abercrombie
62 S.E.2d 209 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Haley v. Bailey
34 S.E.2d 685 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Bridges v. Poole
168 S.E. 577 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Toole v. Davis
78 S.E. 865 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
White v. City of Tifton
57 S.E. 1038 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)