Murphy v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Murphy v. Mitchell

119 S.E. 424, 30 Ga. App. 736, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 659

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 22, 1923·No. 13832·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being a suit on open account, and the amount of the verdict found for the plaintiff having been reduced by him by writing off a sum specified by the court as a condition precedent to the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and it not being made to appear to this court that from the application of the law to the evidence the excess could be definitely and accurately ascertained, the order denying a new7 trial upon this condition wras error. Central &c. Ry. Co. v. Perkerson, 112 Ga. 923 (38 S. E. 365, 53 L. R. A. 210); Lee v. Bagwell, 14 Ga. App. 699 (82 S. E. 49).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J:, and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

This being a suit on open account, and the amount of the verdict found for the plaintiff having been reduced by him by writing off a sum specified by the court as a condition precedent to the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and it not being made to appear to this court that from the application of the law to the evidence the excess could be definitely and accurately ascertained, the order denying a new7 trial upon this condition wras error. Central &c. Ry. Co. v. Perkerson, 112 Ga. 923 (38 S. E. 365, 53 L. R. A. 210); Lee v. Bagwell, 14 Ga. App. 699 (82 S. E. 49).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J:, and Bell, J., concur.

Murphy v. Mitchell, 119 S.E. 424, 30 Ga. App. 736, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

119 S.E. 424 (Murphy v. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related