Shierling Bros. v. Richland Grocery Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shierling Bros. v. Richland Grocery Co.

70 S.E. 1126, 9 Ga. App. 271, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 510

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 24, 1911·No. 3037·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. The right to defend against a contract on the ground that it was within the statute of frauds and was not in writing is one of personal privilege, and unless the record discloses that this defense was raised in the trial coru’t it can not be insisted upon in this court. Marks v. Talmadge, 8 Ga. App. 557 (69 S. E. 1131).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict.

3. The note of the trial judge, attached to the approval of the special grounds of the motion for new trial, practically amounts to a disapproval of them, and leaves them in such shape that they present no substantial question for the decision of this court. Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

1. The right to defend against a contract on the ground that it was within the statute of frauds and was not in writing is one of personal privilege, and unless the record discloses that this defense was raised in the trial coru’t it can not be insisted upon in this court. Marks v. Talmadge, 8 Ga. App. 557 (69 S. E. 1131).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict.

3. The note of the trial judge, attached to the approval of the special grounds of the motion for new trial, practically amounts to a disapproval of them, and leaves them in such shape that they present no substantial question for the decision of this court. Judgment affirmed.

Shierling Bros. v. Richland Grocery Co., 70 S.E. 1126, 9 Ga. App. 271, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

70 S.E. 1126 (Shierling Bros. v. Richland Grocery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

2. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Related