Watts v. Atlanta Realty Investment Co.

107 S.E. 169, 26 Ga. App. 587, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 538
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 13, 1921
Docket11918
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Watts v. Atlanta Realty Investment Co., 107 S.E. 169, 26 Ga. App. 587, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 538 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

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.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Related

Cooper v. Ricketson
91 S.E. 543 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Callaway v. Pearson
94 S.E. 817 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Daniel v. State
101 S.E. 812 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.