Rice v. Lowry

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rice v. Lowry

99 S.E. 223, 23 Ga. App. 694, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 295

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1919

Docket10168

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 223 (Rice v. Lowry) 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

Rice v. Lowry, 99 S.E. 223, 23 Ga. App. 694, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 295 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Even if the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial could be considered as anything more than amplifications of the general grounds, not one of them is complete and understandable within itself, or is definite enough to present anything for adjudication by this court. Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co., 146 Ga. 157 (4) ’(91 S. E. 32); Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546 (2) (87 S. E. 668); Bridges v. Griffin, 20 Ga. App. 599 (2) (93 S. E. 170); Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams, 19 Ga. App. 544 (4) (91 S. E. 1001).

2. When this case was first before this court (22 Ga. App. 36, 95 S. E. 330), it was held that the bond sued on was a valid obligation and had been automatically breached by the principal therein having disposed of a portion of the property. Under the foregoing rulings the motion for a new trial points out no error, the only question for determination was the amount for which the bond was breached, arid there, was evidence to support the finding of the judge, who passed upon the case without the intervention of a jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Even if the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial could be considered as anything more than amplifications of the general grounds, not one of them is complete and understandable within itself, or is definite enough to present anything for adjudication by this court. Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co., 146 Ga. 157 (4) ’(91 S. E. 32); Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546 (2) (87 S. E. 668); Bridges v. Griffin, 20 Ga. App. 599 (2) (93 S. E. 170); Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams, 19 Ga. App. 544 (4) (91 S. E. 1001).

2. When this case was first before this court (22 Ga. App. 36, 95 S. E. 330), it was held that the bond sued on was a valid obligation and had been automatically breached by the principal therein having disposed of a portion of the property. Under the foregoing rulings the motion for a new trial points out no error, the only question for determination was the amount for which the bond was breached, arid there, was evidence to support the finding of the judge, who passed upon the case without the intervention of a jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 223, 23 Ga. App. 694, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-lowry-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack