Hushinsky v. Retailers Service Bureau

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hushinsky v. Retailers Service Bureau

150 S.E. 575, 40 Ga. App. 490, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 594

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1929

Docket19697

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 575 (Hushinsky v. Retailers Service Bureau) 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

Hushinsky v. Retailers Service Bureau, 150 S.E. 575, 40 Ga. App. 490, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 594 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Suit on a contract for advertising matter was instituted by the Eetailers Service Bureau against Mrs. Max Hushinsky, who was trading under the name of “The Bee Hive.” Upon the trial of the ease a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the verdict has the approval of the trial judge. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Suit on a contract for advertising matter was instituted by the Eetailers Service Bureau against Mrs. Max Hushinsky, who was trading under the name of “The Bee Hive.” Upon the trial of the ease a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the verdict has the approval of the trial judge. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 575, 40 Ga. App. 490, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hushinsky-v-retailers-service-bureau-gactapp-1929.