Rainey v. McFarland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rainey v. McFarland

115 S.E. 925, 29 Ga. App. 494, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 88

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1923

Docket13637

StatusPublished

This text of 115 S.E. 925 (Rainey v. McFarland) 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

Rainey v. McFarland, 115 S.E. 925, 29 Ga. App. 494, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 88 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

Although the plaintiff in error, who was defendant in the trial court, recites in his bill of exceptions that a verdict adverse to him was by the court directed, the sole assignment of error is upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial, which contained the general grounds only; and, since the evidence did not demand a verdict in his favor, such judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

Although the plaintiff in error, who was defendant in the trial court, recites in his bill of exceptions that a verdict adverse to him was by the court directed, the sole assignment of error is upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial, which contained the general grounds only; and, since the evidence did not demand a verdict in his favor, such judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.E. 925, 29 Ga. App. 494, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainey-v-mcfarland-gactapp-1923.