McKinney v. Chapman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McKinney v. Chapman

139 S.E. 98, 37 Ga. App. 174, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 565

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 26, 1927

Docket18297

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.E. 98 (McKinney v. Chapman) 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

McKinney v. Chapman, 139 S.E. 98, 37 Ga. App. 174, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial shows no reason why the case should be tried again.

2. Juries are the final arbiters on all questions of fact. In this case the conflicting evidence was settled by the jury in favor of the plaintiff, and, no error of law having been committed on the trial, the verdict must stand.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial shows no reason why the case should be tried again.

2. Juries are the final arbiters on all questions of fact. In this case the conflicting evidence was settled by the jury in favor of the plaintiff, and, no error of law having been committed on the trial, the verdict must stand.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 98, 37 Ga. App. 174, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-chapman-gactapp-1927.