King v. Meyer

Supreme Court of Georgia

King v. Meyer

24 S.E. 32, 97 Ga. 379

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 2, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 S.E. 32 (King v. Meyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

King v. Meyer, 24 S.E. 32, 97 Ga. 379 (Ga. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

An examination of the record does not disclose that there was any abuse of discretion in setting aside the verdict and judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in error in the court below at the same term at which they were rendered. Whether the case was, or was not, legally ripe for trial, it is manifest that, under the rules of practice prevailing in that court, the case was tried prematurely, and the verdict and judgment improvidently allowed. Judgment affirmed.

W. II. Terrell and Glenn & Rountree, for plaintiffs. Candler & Thomson, for defendants.

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

Atkinson, J.

An examination of the record does not disclose that there was any abuse of discretion in setting aside the verdict and judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in error in the court below at the same term at which they were rendered. Whether the case was, or was not, legally ripe for trial, it is manifest that, under the rules of practice prevailing in that court, the case was tried prematurely, and the verdict and judgment improvidently allowed. Judgment affirmed.

W. II. Terrell and Glenn & Rountree, for plaintiffs. Candler & Thomson, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 S.E. 32, 97 Ga. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-meyer-ga-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack