Smyly v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smyly v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance

118 S.E. 766, 30 Ga. App. 620, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 569

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1923

Docket13071, 13072

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.E. 766 (Smyly v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance) 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

Smyly v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance, 118 S.E. 766, 30 Ga. App. 620, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

This ease was carried by writ of certiorari from this court to the Supreme Court, and the judgment based upon the opinion of a majority of this court was reversed. The headnotes to the opinion of the Supreme Court are as follows:

[621]*621Decided July 11, 1923. Walter DeFore, James G. Estes, for plaintiff. Robert G. Plunkett, for defendant.

“ 1. The ease comes to this court on certiorari assigning error on the judgment of the Court of Appeals. After careful consideration we have arrived at the conclusion that the verdict was supported by evidence, and that the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. It necessarily follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the trial court in overruling a motion for a new trial based on the general grounds, was erroneous.”

“ 2. It is unnecessary to decide the assignment of error based on the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court, complained of in the cross-bill of exceptions, because the effect of the ruling made in the preceding headnote will be an affirmance by the Court of Appeals on the main bill of exceptions and a dismissal of the cross-bill of exceptions.” For full opinion see 155 Ga. 547 (117 S. E. 819). Under the foregoing ruling the judgment formerly rendered in this ease is vacated, and the

Judgment on main bill of exceptions is affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

This ease was carried by writ of certiorari from this court to the Supreme Court, and the judgment based upon the opinion of a majority of this court was reversed. The headnotes to the opinion of the Supreme Court are as follows:

[621]*621Decided July 11, 1923. Walter DeFore, James G. Estes, for plaintiff. Robert G. Plunkett, for defendant.

“ 1. The ease comes to this court on certiorari assigning error on the judgment of the Court of Appeals. After careful consideration we have arrived at the conclusion that the verdict was supported by evidence, and that the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. It necessarily follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the trial court in overruling a motion for a new trial based on the general grounds, was erroneous.”

“ 2. It is unnecessary to decide the assignment of error based on the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court, complained of in the cross-bill of exceptions, because the effect of the ruling made in the preceding headnote will be an affirmance by the Court of Appeals on the main bill of exceptions and a dismissal of the cross-bill of exceptions.” For full opinion see 155 Ga. 547 (117 S. E. 819). Under the foregoing ruling the judgment formerly rendered in this ease is vacated, and the

Judgment on main bill of exceptions is affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 766, 30 Ga. App. 620, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smyly-v-globe-rutgers-fire-insurance-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack