Provident Loan & Investment Co. v. Treadaway
This text of 118 S.E. 766 (Provident Loan & Investment Co. v. Treadaway) 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.
Opinion
1. The refusal of the court to give the requested instructions to the jury was not error.
{a) A portion of the requested charge set forth in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial was not applicable to the facts of the case.
(b) A portion of the requested charge set forth in the second ground (numbered 3) of the amendment to the motion for a new trial did not correctly present the law upon the subject involved.
2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing the grant of a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
118 S.E. 766, 30 Ga. App. 676, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/provident-loan-investment-co-v-treadaway-gactapp-1923.