Miles v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Miles v. Johnson

142 S.E. 168, 166 Ga. 46, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 211

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 20, 1928

DocketNo. 5906

StatusPublished

This text of 142 S.E. 168 (Miles v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miles v. Johnson, 142 S.E. 168, 166 Ga. 46, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 211 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the deeds executed July 30, 1923, by heirs at law of James R. Courson to the plaintiff, over the objections (a) that they were irrelevant, and, “being quitclaim deeds, could not be a basis of title authorizing the plaintiff’s recovery in said case;” (b) “that the suit was for the reformation of another deed, and the issue in the case was whether or not plaintiff had a right to correct the deed.”

2. The remaining grounds of the motion for new trial are merely elaborative of the general grounds. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Wade E. Watson, for plaintiffs in error. E. J. Lawrence, contra.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the deeds executed July 30, 1923, by heirs at law of James R. Courson to the plaintiff, over the objections (a) that they were irrelevant, and, “being quitclaim deeds, could not be a basis of title authorizing the plaintiff’s recovery in said case;” (b) “that the suit was for the reformation of another deed, and the issue in the case was whether or not plaintiff had a right to correct the deed.”

2. The remaining grounds of the motion for new trial are merely elaborative of the general grounds. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Wade E. Watson, for plaintiffs in error. E. J. Lawrence, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 168, 166 Ga. 46, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-johnson-ga-1928.