Hunnicutt v. Graves

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hunnicutt v. Graves

72 S.E. 526, 10 Ga. App. 12, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 610

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1911

Docket3297

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.E. 526 (Hunnicutt v. Graves) 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

Hunnicutt v. Graves, 72 S.E. 526, 10 Ga. App. 12, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 610 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The law applicable to the issues made by the evidence in this case was fully stated in the opinion of this court when the case was here before. Graves v. Hunnicutt, 8 Ga. App. 99 (68 S. E. 558).

2. Where a case has been before this court on assignment of error to a judgment awarding a nonsuit, and the judgment has been reversed because in the opinion of the court there was some evidence which, under the law, would have authorized a verdict for the plaintiff, and on the second ■ trial the evidence for the plaintiff is substantially the same as it was on the first trial, and the evidence in behalf of the defendant goes only to the extent of raising a conflict on issues of fact, and no error of law is complained of, no question is presented for decision in this court, and the verdict for the plaintiff will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Beid.

February 7, 1911. Q. L. Pettigrew, for plaintiff in error. George Gordon, Burton Cloud, contra.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The law applicable to the issues made by the evidence in this case was fully stated in the opinion of this court when the case was here before. Graves v. Hunnicutt, 8 Ga. App. 99 (68 S. E. 558).

2. Where a case has been before this court on assignment of error to a judgment awarding a nonsuit, and the judgment has been reversed because in the opinion of the court there was some evidence which, under the law, would have authorized a verdict for the plaintiff, and on the second ■ trial the evidence for the plaintiff is substantially the same as it was on the first trial, and the evidence in behalf of the defendant goes only to the extent of raising a conflict on issues of fact, and no error of law is complained of, no question is presented for decision in this court, and the verdict for the plaintiff will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Beid.

February 7, 1911. Q. L. Pettigrew, for plaintiff in error. George Gordon, Burton Cloud, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 526, 10 Ga. App. 12, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunnicutt-v-graves-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack