Rowland v. Bell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rowland v. Bell

76 S.E. 995, 12 Ga. App. 137, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 462

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1913

Docket4452

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 995 (Rowland v. Bell) 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

Rowland v. Bell, 76 S.E. 995, 12 Ga. App. 137, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 462 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hei, C. J.

1. Nothing is better settled than the principle that unless the judgment rendered in the lower court is absolutely demanded by the evidence, the first grant of a new trial on certiorari, in the absence of any controlling question of law, will not be disturbed. Fair v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2 Ga. App. 376 (58 S. E. 492); Freeman v. Maxwell, 10 Ga. App. 316 (73 S. E. 349); Cochran v. Minter, 10 Ga. App. 377 (73 S. E. 551).

2. In the present case the jury in the justice’s court found a verdict generally for the defendant, when the undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover at least a part of the account sued on. The judgment, therefore, remanding the case for another trial, was not affected by the overruling of exceptions to the magistrate’s answer.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hei, C. J.

1. Nothing is better settled than the principle that unless the judgment rendered in the lower court is absolutely demanded by the evidence, the first grant of a new trial on certiorari, in the absence of any controlling question of law, will not be disturbed. Fair v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2 Ga. App. 376 (58 S. E. 492); Freeman v. Maxwell, 10 Ga. App. 316 (73 S. E. 349); Cochran v. Minter, 10 Ga. App. 377 (73 S. E. 551).

2. In the present case the jury in the justice’s court found a verdict generally for the defendant, when the undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover at least a part of the account sued on. The judgment, therefore, remanding the case for another trial, was not affected by the overruling of exceptions to the magistrate’s answer.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 995, 12 Ga. App. 137, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowland-v-bell-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack