Smiley v. Twitty

101 S.E. 584, 24 Ga. App. 629, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 975
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 16, 1919·No. 10902·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] Decided 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

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

101 S.E. 584 (Smiley v. Twitty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fulcher v. Fulcher
43 S.E.2d 588 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)