Sparks v. Yatesville Gin Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sparks v. Yatesville Gin Co.

95 S.E. 1021, 22 Ga. App. 324, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 324

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1918

Docket8992

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 1021 (Sparks v. Yatesville Gin Co.) 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

Sparks v. Yatesville Gin Co., 95 S.E. 1021, 22 Ga. App. 324, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. In the petition for certiorari the only errors alleged, other than that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, were: (1)' The-overruling of the petitioner’s objections to an amendment to the defendant’s plea'; and (2) the allowance of certain testimony, over .the objections of the petitioner. In the answer of the magistrate (to which no tr.averse or exception was filed) it does not appear what were the petitioner’s, objections to the allowance of the amendment, or to the admission of the testimony. Under such.a condition of the record this court can not say that the trial court erred, either in allowing the amendment or in admitting the testimony.

2. There was some evidence in support of the 'verdict, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., coneur.

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

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. In the petition for certiorari the only errors alleged, other than that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, were: (1)' The-overruling of the petitioner’s objections to an amendment to the defendant’s plea'; and (2) the allowance of certain testimony, over .the objections of the petitioner. In the answer of the magistrate (to which no tr.averse or exception was filed) it does not appear what were the petitioner’s, objections to the allowance of the amendment, or to the admission of the testimony. Under such.a condition of the record this court can not say that the trial court erred, either in allowing the amendment or in admitting the testimony.

2. There was some evidence in support of the 'verdict, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., coneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 1021, 22 Ga. App. 324, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-yatesville-gin-co-gactapp-1918.