Polhill v. State

103 S.E. 469, 25 Ga. App. 383, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 817
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1920·No. 11283·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The judgment overruling the demurrer in this case can not be considered, as no assignment of error upon the exception pendente lite, or upon the judgment overruling the demurrer, is contained in the final bill of exceptions, nor was error assigned thereon, by permission of this court, before the beginning of the argument here. A judgment upon the demurrer can not bo considered upon the motion for a new trial.

2. The motion for a new trial is based on the general grounds only, and this court can not say that the evidence did not authorize the verdict. Eor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Polhill v. State, 103 S.E. 469, 25 Ga. App. 383, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

103 S.E. 469 (Polhill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southern Loan & Investment Co. v. State
22 S.E.2d 108 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Cary v. State
189 S.E. 625 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Trammell v. Shirley
145 S.E. 486 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)