Smith v. Crane

Supreme Court of Georgia

Smith v. Crane

113 S.E. 803, 154 Ga. 243, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 340

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1922

DocketNo. 2956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 803 (Smith v. Crane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Crane, 113 S.E. 803, 154 Ga. 243, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 340 (Ga. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. Although there were two or more theories set up by the petition in the case upon which the petitioner would have been entitled to recover a one-half undivided interest in the land in controversy, the verdict for a one-half undivided interest in favor of the plaintiff will not be set aside on the ground that it was without evidence to support it, where there is evidence to support one of those theories, although the verdict itself does not show upon which one the finding was made in favor- of the plaintiff.

2. The inaccuracy in reciting a part of the evidence and applying the law to it, in one part of the charge excepted to was not of sufficient materiality to require the grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Sines, J., disqualified.

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

Per Curiam.

1. Although there were two or more theories set up by the petition in the case upon which the petitioner would have been entitled to recover a one-half undivided interest in the land in controversy, the verdict for a one-half undivided interest in favor of the plaintiff will not be set aside on the ground that it was without evidence to support it, where there is evidence to support one of those theories, although the verdict itself does not show upon which one the finding was made in favor- of the plaintiff.

2. The inaccuracy in reciting a part of the evidence and applying the law to it, in one part of the charge excepted to was not of sufficient materiality to require the grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Sines, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 803, 154 Ga. 243, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-crane-ga-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack