Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Tench v. Swift & Co.

Tench v. Swift & Co.

136 S.E. 287, 36 Ga. App. 182, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 846
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 14, 1926
Docket17530
StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.E. 287 (Tench v. Swift & 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
Tench v. Swift & Co., 136 S.E. 287, 36 Ga. App. 182, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinions

Luke, J.

Tlie sole assignment of error in the motion for a new trial being upon the usual general grounds, and there being some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Related

Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Randolph
59 S.E. 1110 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 S.E. 287, 36 Ga. App. 182, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tench-v-swift-co-gactapp-1926.