McJenkin Insurance v. Burton
This text of 90 S.E.2d 27 (McJenkin Insurance v. Burton) 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.
Opinion
The special grounds of the motion for new trial complain that the trial court erred (1) in overruling the general demurrer to count two of the petition as originally filed, and (2) in overruling the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s amendment to count two of the petition. “Rulings upon the sufficiency of the pleadings are not proper subject matter for a motion for a new trial.” Union Brokerage Co. v. Fine, 30 Ga. App. 788 (119 S. E. 343); Fechtel v. Chastain, 79 Ga. App. 517 (54 S. E. 2d 459). Accordingly, the special grounds of the motion for new trial cannot be considered.
On the trial of the case there was evidence that the plain[833]*833tiff, a duly licensed realty company, procured for the defendant a purchaser for certain real property, and that the defendant sold this property to the purchaser procured by the plaintiff. Accordingly, there was some evidence to support the judgment of the trial court hearing the case without the intervention of a jury. Therefore the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial for any reason assigned.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 S.E.2d 27, 92 Ga. App. 832, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcjenkin-insurance-v-burton-gactapp-1955.