Smiley v. Twitty

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smiley v. Twitty

101 S.E. 584, 24 Ga. App. 629, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 975

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 16, 1919

Docket10902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 S.E. 584 (Smiley v. Twitty) 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

Smiley v. Twitty, 101 S.E. 584, 24 Ga. App. 629, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 975 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, 3. 1.

“This court, by the constitutional amendment creating it, is limited in jurisdiction to the correction of errors in law alone; and therefore has no power to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdiet is strongly contrary to the weight of evidenee, if there is any evidence at all to support it.” Edge v. Thomas. 9 Ga. App. 559 (71 S. E. 875); Randall v. Bell, 12 Ga. App. 614 (77 S. E. 1132); Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga. App. 24 (90 S. E. 732); McCarty v. Keys, 19 Ga. App. 494 (91 S. E. 875).

[630]*630Decided December 16, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Camilla—Charles Watt Jr., judge pro hac vice. July 26, 1919.

A. 8. Johnson, for plaintiffs in error. Peacoclc & Gardner, contra.

2. The motion for a new trial embraced the usual general grounds only. There was evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Smith, 3. 1.

“This court, by the constitutional amendment creating it, is limited in jurisdiction to the correction of errors in law alone; and therefore has no power to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdiet is strongly contrary to the weight of evidenee, if there is any evidence at all to support it.” Edge v. Thomas. 9 Ga. App. 559 (71 S. E. 875); Randall v. Bell, 12 Ga. App. 614 (77 S. E. 1132); Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga. App. 24 (90 S. E. 732); McCarty v. Keys, 19 Ga. App. 494 (91 S. E. 875).

[630]*630Decided December 16, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Camilla—Charles Watt Jr., judge pro hac vice. July 26, 1919.

A. 8. Johnson, for plaintiffs in error. Peacoclc & Gardner, contra.

2. The motion for a new trial embraced the usual general grounds only. There was evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 584, 24 Ga. App. 629, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smiley-v-twitty-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack