Levinson v. Guggenheimer & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Levinson v. Guggenheimer & Co.

144 S.E. 339, 38 Ga. App. 569, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 339

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 1, 1928

Docket18606

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 144 S.E. 339 (Levinson v. Guggenheimer & 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

Levinson v. Guggenheimer & Co., 144 S.E. 339, 38 Ga. App. 569, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, where a verdict is directed and the losing party excepts to the overruling of his motion for a new trial but does not complain, either in the bill of exceptions or in the motion for a new trial, of the direction of the verdict, the reviewing court will consider, in this connection, only the question as to whether the verdict is supported by the evidence.” Watson v. Kvaternik Export Stave Co., 31 Ga. App. 146 (2) (121 S. E. 126); Head v. Towaliga Falls Power Co., 27 Ga. App. 142 (107 S. E. 558); Moore v. Butler, 150 Ga. 154 (3) (103 S. E. 154); Kelley v. Gartledge, 151 Ga. 179 (106 S. E. 93).

2. The evidence did not demand a finding in favor of the defendant upon either of the defenses pleaded, but authorized the verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff. The court did not err in refusing the defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, where a verdict is directed and the losing party excepts to the overruling of his motion for a new trial but does not complain, either in the bill of exceptions or in the motion for a new trial, of the direction of the verdict, the reviewing court will consider, in this connection, only the question as to whether the verdict is supported by the evidence.” Watson v. Kvaternik Export Stave Co., 31 Ga. App. 146 (2) (121 S. E. 126); Head v. Towaliga Falls Power Co., 27 Ga. App. 142 (107 S. E. 558); Moore v. Butler, 150 Ga. 154 (3) (103 S. E. 154); Kelley v. Gartledge, 151 Ga. 179 (106 S. E. 93).

2. The evidence did not demand a finding in favor of the defendant upon either of the defenses pleaded, but authorized the verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff. The court did not err in refusing the defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 339, 38 Ga. App. 569, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levinson-v-guggenheimer-co-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack