Odom v. Coley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Odom v. Coley

75 S.E. 822, 11 Ga. App. 490, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 77

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 24, 1912

Docket3778

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 822 (Odom v. Coley) 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

Odom v. Coley, 75 S.E. 822, 11 Ga. App. 490, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The motion to dismiss the writ of error can not be entertained; for in the court below there was no objection to the brief of evidence. “Where the judge has finally passed on. the merits of a motion for a new trial and parties have raised no question as to the sufficiency of the approval of the grounds of such motion, or of the approval of the brief of evidence, or of the filing of such motion or brief, . . no question as to these matters shall be entertained by the reviewing courts unless first raised and insisted on before the trial judge.” Acts of 1911, p. 149, section 3.

2. Though there was conflict in the evidence as to the consideration of the note upon which the suit was brought, and as to whether it had been paid, there was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict; and therefore it was not error to refuse a new trial. . Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

1. The motion to dismiss the writ of error can not be entertained; for in the court below there was no objection to the brief of evidence. “Where the judge has finally passed on. the merits of a motion for a new trial and parties have raised no question as to the sufficiency of the approval of the grounds of such motion, or of the approval of the brief of evidence, or of the filing of such motion or brief, . . no question as to these matters shall be entertained by the reviewing courts unless first raised and insisted on before the trial judge.” Acts of 1911, p. 149, section 3.

2. Though there was conflict in the evidence as to the consideration of the note upon which the suit was brought, and as to whether it had been paid, there was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict; and therefore it was not error to refuse a new trial. . Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E. 822, 11 Ga. App. 490, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-coley-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack