Saul v. Carson Naval Stores Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Saul v. Carson Naval Stores Co.

187 S.E. 392, 53 Ga. App. 571, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 321

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 18, 1936

Docket25387

StatusPublished

This text of 187 S.E. 392 (Saul v. Carson Naval Stores Co.) 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

Saul v. Carson Naval Stores Co., 187 S.E. 392, 53 Ga. App. 571, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

This was a suit on notes. A plea to the jurisdiction was filed, and the issue was submitted to a jury, which found adversely to the defendant’s plea. An answer in the nature of a cross-action was filed by the defendant, and the issue thereon was submitted to a jury, which found against the contentions of the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff. The verdicts of both juries were amply supported by the evidence, and have the approval of the trial judge; and the assignments of error are without merit. We have carefully read and studied each ground of the motion complaining of the admission and rejection of testimony, [572]*572together with the exceptions to the charge of the court. They present no question requiring discussion, and are plainly without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

This was a suit on notes. A plea to the jurisdiction was filed, and the issue was submitted to a jury, which found adversely to the defendant’s plea. An answer in the nature of a cross-action was filed by the defendant, and the issue thereon was submitted to a jury, which found against the contentions of the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff. The verdicts of both juries were amply supported by the evidence, and have the approval of the trial judge; and the assignments of error are without merit. We have carefully read and studied each ground of the motion complaining of the admission and rejection of testimony, [572]*572together with the exceptions to the charge of the court. They present no question requiring discussion, and are plainly without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 392, 53 Ga. App. 571, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saul-v-carson-naval-stores-co-gactapp-1936.