Scott v. Scott
Opinion
1. Where the entire evidence of a witness is set out in a ground of motion for new trial, and it is apparent from a reading thereof that some of the evidence of the witness is relevant and admis[95] sible, this court will not consider objections made in general terms to the entire testimony. Luke v. State, 26 Ga. App. 175 (106 S. E. 199); City of Atlanta v. Sciple, 19 Ga. App. 694 (92 S. E. 28); American Insurance Company v. Bailey & Musgrove, 6 Ga. App. 424 (65 S. E. 160).
2. The assignments of error not dealt with above are plainly without merit.
3. The question of title was fairly submitted to the jury by the trial judge, and the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict. The court, therefore, did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
179 S.E. 593 (Scott v. Scott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.