Pruitt v. Hulsey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pruitt v. Hulsey

111 S.E. 704, 28 Ga. App. 437, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 577

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket12954

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 704 (Pruitt v. Hulsey) 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

Pruitt v. Hulsey, 111 S.E. 704, 28 Ga. App. 437, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 577 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant did not sustain his plea of non est factum to the note sued upon. The evidence fully authorized the verdict. The several assignments of error upon the admission of testimony, and the criticism urged as to the charge of the court, upon a careful examination of the record, are without merit. It was not error to overrule' the mo[438]*438tion for a new trial. See, in this connection, Morris v. Battey, 23 Ga. App. 90, and cases cited.

Decided April 11, 1922.

Complaint; from city court of Hall county —• Judge Sloan. September 10, 1921.

Ed. Quillian, W. N. Oliver, for plaintiff in error. Charters, Wheeler & Lilly, contra.

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