Patterson v. Farish & Sons
131 S.E. 186, 34 Ga. App. 785, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 35
Opinion
1. The first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial complains of the admission of certain documentary evidence, but, as the evidence is not set forth in the ground nor attached thereto as an exhibit, this ground can not be considered. Carson v. State, 23 Ga. App. 535 (3) (98 S. E. 187).
2. There is np merit in the other special ground of the motion.
3. The evidence demanded a verdict for the defendant, and the court did not err in directing such a verdict, nor in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Patterson v. Farish & Sons, 131 S.E. 186, 34 Ga. App. 785, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 35 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).
131 S.E. 186 (Patterson v. Farish & Sons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Beard v. Westmoreland
84 S.E.2d 93 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Pate v. King
54 S.E.2d 476 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
City of LaGrange v. Pounds
177 S.E. 762 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Davis v. McKenzie Motor Co.
166 S.E. 869 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Grier v. State
158 S.E. 634 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Trammell v. Shirley
145 S.E. 486 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)