Jones v. Pringle

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. Pringle

130 S.E.2d 924, 107 Ga. App. 618, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 927

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 15, 1963·No. 40034; 40035·Published

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

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.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

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.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

Jones v. Pringle, 130 S.E.2d 924, 107 Ga. App. 618, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 927 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

130 S.E.2d 924 (Jones v. Pringle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related