Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Stoddard v. Churchill Line

Stoddard v. Churchill Line

140 S.E. 778, 37 Ga. App. 347, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 668
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 16, 1927·No. 18312·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The ease, by consent of both parties, was submitted to the court, without the intervention of a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, and the court did not err in rendering a judgment in favor of the defendant, or thereafter in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe <md Bloodworth, JJ., concur. H. Mercer Jordan, Robert L. Golding, for plaintiff, cited: 128 Ga. 628 (4); Id. 695; 15 Ga. App. 678 (2); 141 Ga. 565 (2). Stephens & Stephens, for defendant, cited: Civil Code (1910), §§ 4266, 4227; 16 Ga. App. 636.

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

Stoddard v. Churchill Line, 140 S.E. 778, 37 Ga. App. 347, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

140 S.E. 778 (Stoddard v. Churchill Line) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southern Railway Co. v. Gore
58 S.E. 180 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Strickland v. Bank of Cartersville
81 S.E. 886 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1914)
Young v. Durham
84 S.E. 165 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)