Hughes v. Dannenberg Co.
104 S.E. 453, 25 Ga. App. 699, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 153
Opinion
The action of the trial judge in granting a second new trial to the defendant, not on account of the verdict rendered but on account of error committed by himself, will not be disturbed, because the charge of the court was in some respects erroneous and in other respects confusing; and, since the verdict, though authorized, was not demanded, the rights of defendant may have been thus prejudiced.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hughes v. Dannenberg Co., 104 S.E. 453, 25 Ga. App. 699, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).
104 S.E. 453 (Hughes v. Dannenberg Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sims v. Georgia Power Co.
143 S.E.2d 652 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)