Watts v. Pearce

Supreme Court of Georgia

Watts v. Pearce

5 S.E. 138, 79 Ga. 660, 1888 Ga. LEXIS 28

DecidedFebruary 6, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 5 S.E. 138 (Watts v. Pearce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Pearce, 5 S.E. 138, 79 Ga. 660, 1888 Ga. LEXIS 28 (Ga. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

Eelix Watts brought his action of ejectment to recover a certain tract of land lying in- the city of Columbus. Upon the trial of the case, there was a great deal of evidence pro and con, some tending to show that the property sued for belonged to Watts, and other testimony tending to show that it did not. Watts obtained a verdict in his favor. A motion for a new trial was made by the defendant ; the court granted the motion, and the plaintiff excepted.

It was asserted by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the verdict was demanded by the evidence. On looking closely into the facts of the case as shown by the record, we do not think the verdict was absolutely demanded by the evidence. The evidence was conflicting, and we think it was a case in which the court below might exercise its discretion to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Blandford, Justice.

Eelix Watts brought his action of ejectment to recover a certain tract of land lying in- the city of Columbus. Upon the trial of the case, there was a great deal of evidence pro and con, some tending to show that the property sued for belonged to Watts, and other testimony tending to show that it did not. Watts obtained a verdict in his favor. A motion for a new trial was made by the defendant ; the court granted the motion, and the plaintiff excepted.

It was asserted by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the verdict was demanded by the evidence. On looking closely into the facts of the case as shown by the record, we do not think the verdict was absolutely demanded by the evidence. The evidence was conflicting, and we think it was a case in which the court below might exercise its discretion to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.E. 138, 79 Ga. 660, 1888 Ga. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-pearce-ga-1888.