Nesbitt v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Nesbitt v. State

185 S.E. 340, 182 Ga. 365, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 362

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1936

DocketNo. 11137

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.E. 340 (Nesbitt v. State) 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

Nesbitt v. State, 185 S.E. 340, 182 Ga. 365, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 362 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, Chief Justice.

The motion for new trial in this ease is based only upon the general grounds. As this court is not empowered to appraise the weight of the testimony adduced in any case, for this is a matter entirely for the determination of the jury, the judgment overruling the motion for new trial can not be reversed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. William B. Kent, for plaintiff in error. M. J. Yeomans, attorney-general, M. E. Boyer, solicitor-general, B. D. Murphy, and George L. Goode, assistant attorneys-general, contra.

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

Russell, Chief Justice.

The motion for new trial in this ease is based only upon the general grounds. As this court is not empowered to appraise the weight of the testimony adduced in any case, for this is a matter entirely for the determination of the jury, the judgment overruling the motion for new trial can not be reversed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. William B. Kent, for plaintiff in error. M. J. Yeomans, attorney-general, M. E. Boyer, solicitor-general, B. D. Murphy, and George L. Goode, assistant attorneys-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 340, 182 Ga. 365, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesbitt-v-state-ga-1936.