Murphy v. Mitchell
This text of 119 S.E. 424 (Murphy v. Mitchell) 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
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
119 S.E. 424, 30 Ga. App. 736, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-mitchell-gactapp-1923.