Huffman v. Carolina Portland Cement Co.

116 S.E. 25, 29 Ga. App. 439, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 56
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 8, 1923
Docket13443
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 25 (Huffman v. Carolina Portland Cement 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
Huffman v. Carolina Portland Cement Co., 116 S.E. 25, 29 Ga. App. 439, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 56 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinions

Belt., J.

1. Where a verdict and judgment rendered in the municipal court of Atlanta in favor of a materialman were illegal to the extent of the special lien set up therein against the property of the defendant, there was no error by the court in allowing the attorney for the plaintiff (the materialman) to write off such illegal part of the verdict and judgment, pending the defendant’s motion for new trial. Haley v. Covington, 19 Ga. App. 782 (3) (92 S. E. 297); Bennett v. Hazlehurst Mercantile Co., 8 Ga. App. 591 (69 S. E. 1084); Langley v. Simmons, 143 Ga. 699 (85 S. E. 832); Latimer v. Sweat, 125 Ga. 475 (2) (54 S. E. 673); Civil Code (1910), § 5696.

2. There being some evidence to authorize that part of the verdict and ' judgment which was not written off, and no error of law in the trial being shown, the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the defendant’s petition for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Related

David v. Marbut-Williams Lumber Co.
122 S.E. 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 S.E. 25, 29 Ga. App. 439, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffman-v-carolina-portland-cement-co-gactapp-1923.