Stewart v. Hay

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stewart v. Hay

179 S.E. 745, 51 Ga. App. 174, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 617

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1935

Docket24424

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E. 745 (Stewart v. Hay) 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

Stewart v. Hay, 179 S.E. 745, 51 Ga. App. 174, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 617 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

In this proceeding of processioning land the processioners filed their return in the office of the ordinary, and a protest thereto was duly filed by two of the landowners concerned, and the papers were transmitted to the superior court, where they were filed and docketed for trial. After the submission of evidence, argument of counsel, and the charge of the court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the protest, and judgment was entered thereon. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the applicant excepted. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict; and the special grounds of the motion for a new trial (complaining of excerpts from the charge of the court) show no cause for' a reversal of the judgment, since the excerpts, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, disclose no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre amd (Juerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

In this proceeding of processioning land the processioners filed their return in the office of the ordinary, and a protest thereto was duly filed by two of the landowners concerned, and the papers were transmitted to the superior court, where they were filed and docketed for trial. After the submission of evidence, argument of counsel, and the charge of the court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the protest, and judgment was entered thereon. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the applicant excepted. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict; and the special grounds of the motion for a new trial (complaining of excerpts from the charge of the court) show no cause for' a reversal of the judgment, since the excerpts, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, disclose no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre amd (Juerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 745, 51 Ga. App. 174, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-hay-gactapp-1935.