Perry v. Monroe
This text of 102 S.E. 356 (Perry v. Monroe) 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.
Opinion
1. The petition as amended sufficiently described the land sued for. It set forth a cause of action, and was not .subject to any of the grounds of demurrer.
2. A ground of a motion for new trial assigning error on the admission in evidence, over stated objections of movant, of a document which is neither set out literally or in substance in the motion nor attached ■ thereto as an exhibit properly identified, but is merely referred to as set out in the brief of evidence, presents no question for decision. Ford v. Blackshear Mfg. Co., 140 Ga. 670 (79 S. E. 576). [27]*273. In so far as any of the grounds of the amended motion for new trial was sufficient in form, it was not sufficiently meritorious to require the grant of a new trial.
4. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the refusal of a new trial was not error.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
102 S.E. 356, 150 Ga. 26, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-monroe-ga-1920.