Hunter v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hunter v. Hall

195 S.E. 327, 57 Ga. App. 321, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 584

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1938

Docket26584

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 S.E. 327 (Hunter v. Hall) 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

Hunter v. Hall, 195 S.E. 327, 57 Ga. App. 321, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

E. P. Hall Sr. filed an affidavit of illegality to the levy of an execution against him in favor of G. E. Hunter et al. After the introduction of evidence by both parties the court directed a verdict against the illegality and dismissed it. Subsequently, Hall was granted a first new trial, and Hunter et al. excepted. When the motion for new trial was heard, none of the parties raised any question-as to the'sufficiency of the approval of the grounds of the motion, or of the approval of the brief of the evidence, or of the filing of such motion or brief, and the court passed on the merits of the motion with the acquiescence of all the parties. It follows that no question as to these matters can be entertained by this court. Acts 1911, p. 149, Code, § 6-805. The decisions cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error were rendered before the passage of the act of 1911.

It does not appear from the bill of exceptions or the transcript of the record that the verdict directed was demanded by the evidence and the law pertinent thereto. Therefore, under repeated [322]*322decisions of the Supreme Court and this court, the first grant of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gueiry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

E. P. Hall Sr. filed an affidavit of illegality to the levy of an execution against him in favor of G. E. Hunter et al. After the introduction of evidence by both parties the court directed a verdict against the illegality and dismissed it. Subsequently, Hall was granted a first new trial, and Hunter et al. excepted. When the motion for new trial was heard, none of the parties raised any question-as to the'sufficiency of the approval of the grounds of the motion, or of the approval of the brief of the evidence, or of the filing of such motion or brief, and the court passed on the merits of the motion with the acquiescence of all the parties. It follows that no question as to these matters can be entertained by this court. Acts 1911, p. 149, Code, § 6-805. The decisions cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error were rendered before the passage of the act of 1911.

It does not appear from the bill of exceptions or the transcript of the record that the verdict directed was demanded by the evidence and the law pertinent thereto. Therefore, under repeated [322]*322decisions of the Supreme Court and this court, the first grant of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gueiry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.E. 327, 57 Ga. App. 321, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-hall-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack