Knight & Son v. Hood

Supreme Court of Georgia

Knight & Son v. Hood

150 S.E. 848, 169 Ga. 514, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 392

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 11, 1929·No. No. 7050·Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. The admission and rejection of the evidence complained of, where the exceptions are specific enough to raise questions for decision by the Supreme Court, was not erroneous.

2. The charges complained of in grounds 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the motion for new trial, and the refusal to charge, are not erroneous for any reason assigned.

[515]*515No. 7050. December 11, 1929. McCutchen, Bowden & Gaggstatter, for plaintiffs. George C. Palmer, for defendant.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, J.

1. The admission and rejection of the evidence complained of, where the exceptions are specific enough to raise questions for decision by the Supreme Court, was not erroneous.

2. The charges complained of in grounds 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the motion for new trial, and the refusal to charge, are not erroneous for any reason assigned.

[515]*515No. 7050. December 11, 1929. McCutchen, Bowden & Gaggstatter, for plaintiffs. George C. Palmer, for defendant.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Knight & Son v. Hood, 150 S.E. 848, 169 Ga. 514, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 392 (Ga. 1929).

Pincite

150 S.E. 848 (Knight & Son v. Hood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.