Watts v. Atlanta Realty Investment Co.
This text of 107 S.E. 169 (Watts v. Atlanta Realty Investment 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.
Opinion
1. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned. Cooper v. Ricketson, 146 Ga. 471(1) (91 S. E. 543) ; Daniel v. State, 24 Ga. App. 557(3) (101 S. E. 812).
2. No error of law is shown, and “ there being evidence to sustain the verdict, this court can not disturb the finding of the jury by overruling the refusal of the trial judge to grant a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence or without evidence to support it.” Callaway v. Pearson, 21 Ga. App. 566(4) (94 S. E. 817), and cases cited.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
107 S.E. 169, 26 Ga. App. 587, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-atlanta-realty-investment-co-gactapp-1921.