Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Jones & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Jones & Co.

91 S.E. 239, 19 Ga. App. 177, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 49

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1917

Docket7581

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 239 (Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Jones & 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

Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Jones & Co., 91 S.E. 239, 19 Ga. App. 177, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, P. J.

1. While, under the pleadings and the evidence, a finding of some specific amount, either for the plaintiff or (by way of recoupment) for the defendants, was strongly authorized, it can not be held that there was no evidence which authorized a general verdict for the defendants. The verdict returned, to wit, “We, the jury, find in favor of the defendants,” having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.

2. The excerpts from the charge of the court to which exception is taken are subject to some criticism, but, when considered in the light of the entire charge (which as a whole was a full, fair, and correct presentation of the contentions of the parties and of the law applicable thereto), do not require a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., eonewr.

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

Bboyles, P. J.

1. While, under the pleadings and the evidence, a finding of some specific amount, either for the plaintiff or (by way of recoupment) for the defendants, was strongly authorized, it can not be held that there was no evidence which authorized a general verdict for the defendants. The verdict returned, to wit, “We, the jury, find in favor of the defendants,” having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.

2. The excerpts from the charge of the court to which exception is taken are subject to some criticism, but, when considered in the light of the entire charge (which as a whole was a full, fair, and correct presentation of the contentions of the parties and of the law applicable thereto), do not require a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., eonewr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 239, 19 Ga. App. 177, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-rock-furniture-manufacturing-co-v-jones-co-gactapp-1917.