Jones v. Pringle
This text of 130 S.E.2d 924 (Jones v. Pringle) 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.
Opinion
Where a case was tried before a jury and at the close of the evidence a motion for directed verdict was granted for the defendant, after which plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds only, the question of whether the direction of the verdict was erroneous because there were questions of fact that should have been submitted to a jury is not raised or presented for decision. Morris v. First Nat. Bank of Vidalia, 174 Ga. 848 (2) (164 SE 200); Ford v. Ford, 203 Ga. 681 (47 SE2d 865). There was evidence to support the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
130 S.E.2d 924, 107 Ga. App. 618, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-pringle-gactapp-1963.