Walters v. Freeman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Walters v. Freeman

42 S.E. 741, 116 Ga. 423, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 122

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 30, 1902·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Cóbb, J.

While the case for plaintiff in error appeals more strongly to this court than that for the defendant in error, yet as a jury of the vicinage has seen proper to render a verdict for the defendant in error, in a case turning upon questions of fact, the judge who presided in the case has approved the verT diet, and the motion for a new trial is confined to the general grounds, this court, in accordance with the rule of non-interference in such cases, feels constrained to affirm the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.'

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

Cóbb, J.

While the case for plaintiff in error appeals more strongly to this court than that for the defendant in error, yet as a jury of the vicinage has seen proper to render a verdict for the defendant in error, in a case turning upon questions of fact, the judge who presided in the case has approved the verT diet, and the motion for a new trial is confined to the general grounds, this court, in accordance with the rule of non-interference in such cases, feels constrained to affirm the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.'

Walters v. Freeman, 42 S.E. 741, 116 Ga. 423, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 122 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

42 S.E. 741 (Walters v. Freeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related