Hughes v. Atlanta Steel Co.

71 S.E. 934, 9 Ga. App. 510, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 211
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 25, 1911
Docket2781, 2782
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 934 (Hughes v. Atlanta Steel 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
Hughes v. Atlanta Steel Co., 71 S.E. 934, 9 Ga. App. 510, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 211 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The questions of law raised in the cross-bill of exceptions having been certified by this court to the Supreme Court, and that court having decided the questions adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error in the cross-bill, the judgment assigned as error in the cross-bill must be affirmed.

2. The judgment of the lower court in granting the motion for a new trial on a single ground must be affirmed, under the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 135 Ga. 151 (68 S. E. 1031), and the decision of this court in Holland v. Williams, 3 Ga. App. 636 (60 S. E. 331). Judgment affirmea.

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

Related

Elder v. Woodruff Hardware & Manufacturing Co.
91 S.E. 942 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Quillian & Bros. v. Oliver
76 S.E. 754 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Owens v. Cocroft
74 S.E. 1098 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 S.E. 934, 9 Ga. App. 510, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-atlanta-steel-co-gactapp-1911.