Scott & Co. v. Ward

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Scott & Co. v. Ward

110 S.E. 319, 28 Ga. App. 49, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 292

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 17, 1922

Docket12440

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E. 319 (Scott & Co. v. Ward) 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

Scott & Co. v. Ward, 110 S.E. 319, 28 Ga. App. 49, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 292 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The case is here upon two assignments of error as to the verdict: one that the verdict is excessive; the other that the evidence did not authorize a verdict in favor of the prevailing party. The first of these assignments of error is without merit, since, before the hearing of the motion for a new trial, the plaintiff wrote off from the verdict and judgment the sum alleged to be in excess of that authorized by evidence. The assignment of error upon the ground that the evidence does not authorize the verdict cannot prevail, for the reason that there is some evidence which, under the first count, authorized the verdict. This verdict having the approval of the trial judge, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The case is here upon two assignments of error as to the verdict: one that the verdict is excessive; the other that the evidence did not authorize a verdict in favor of the prevailing party. The first of these assignments of error is without merit, since, before the hearing of the motion for a new trial, the plaintiff wrote off from the verdict and judgment the sum alleged to be in excess of that authorized by evidence. The assignment of error upon the ground that the evidence does not authorize the verdict cannot prevail, for the reason that there is some evidence which, under the first count, authorized the verdict. This verdict having the approval of the trial judge, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 319, 28 Ga. App. 49, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-co-v-ward-gactapp-1922.