Lee v. Texas Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lee v. Texas Co.

153 S.E. 379, 41 Ga. App. 492, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 949

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1930

Docket20448

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E. 379 (Lee v. Texas Co.) 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

Lee v. Texas Co., 153 S.E. 379, 41 Ga. App. 492, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 949 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The Texas Company sued Homer C. Lee for $220.04, alleged to be the balance due on an account. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sought to be recovered, and the defendant excepts to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial.

The defendant admitted owing the plaintiff $78.30, and pleaded that he had not been allowed certain credits which should have been allowed and which, with the amount admitted to be due, settled the account in full. The evidence, though conflicting in some respects, amply sustains the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Ground 4 of the motion for a new trial is merely an elaboration of the general grounds. Grounds 5 and 6, complaining that the court erred “in admitting in evidence, over objections of the defendant’s attorneys,” certain invoices, which were not set forth' in the grounds either literally or in substance, are patently too defective to be considered by this court. Turner v. Duncan, 152 Ga. 54 [493]*493(2) (108 S. E. 532); Sheppard v. State, 167 Ga. 326 (4), 336 (145 S. E. 654); Bostick v. State, 34 Ga.App. 595 (130 S. E. 221). Ground 7 is an elaboration of the general grounds. Ground 8, complaining that “the verdict of the jury is contrary to the charge of the court/’ presents nothing for this court to consider. McKelvin v. State, 17 Ga. App. 413 (87 S. E. 150).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The Texas Company sued Homer C. Lee for $220.04, alleged to be the balance due on an account. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sought to be recovered, and the defendant excepts to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial.

The defendant admitted owing the plaintiff $78.30, and pleaded that he had not been allowed certain credits which should have been allowed and which, with the amount admitted to be due, settled the account in full. The evidence, though conflicting in some respects, amply sustains the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Ground 4 of the motion for a new trial is merely an elaboration of the general grounds. Grounds 5 and 6, complaining that the court erred “in admitting in evidence, over objections of the defendant’s attorneys,” certain invoices, which were not set forth' in the grounds either literally or in substance, are patently too defective to be considered by this court. Turner v. Duncan, 152 Ga. 54 [493]*493(2) (108 S. E. 532); Sheppard v. State, 167 Ga. 326 (4), 336 (145 S. E. 654); Bostick v. State, 34 Ga.App. 595 (130 S. E. 221). Ground 7 is an elaboration of the general grounds. Ground 8, complaining that “the verdict of the jury is contrary to the charge of the court/’ presents nothing for this court to consider. McKelvin v. State, 17 Ga. App. 413 (87 S. E. 150).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 379, 41 Ga. App. 492, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-texas-co-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack