Riley v. Hamlin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Riley v. Hamlin

111 S.E. 80, 28 Ga. App. 389, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 537

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 9, 1922

Docket12709

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 80 (Riley v. Hamlin) 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

Riley v. Hamlin, 111 S.E. 80, 28 Ga. App. 389, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

The verdict for the plaintiff, in his suit for the recovery of money alleged to have been erroneously paid to the defendant for the repair of the plaintiff’s automobile after the defendant’s assurance that such repairs had been made in a first-class workmanlike manner, when in fact they had not been so made, was supported by evidence, although conflicting; and, the only ground additional to the general grounds being based upon certain newly discovered evidence, which, upon examination of the record, appears to be solely of cumulative and impeaching character in reference to testimony already produced, and not likely to produce a different result, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bill, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

The verdict for the plaintiff, in his suit for the recovery of money alleged to have been erroneously paid to the defendant for the repair of the plaintiff’s automobile after the defendant’s assurance that such repairs had been made in a first-class workmanlike manner, when in fact they had not been so made, was supported by evidence, although conflicting; and, the only ground additional to the general grounds being based upon certain newly discovered evidence, which, upon examination of the record, appears to be solely of cumulative and impeaching character in reference to testimony already produced, and not likely to produce a different result, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 80, 28 Ga. App. 389, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-hamlin-gactapp-1922.