West v. Cunningham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

West v. Cunningham

159 S.E. 748, 43 Ga. App. 581, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 472

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1931

Docket21532

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 S.E. 748 (West v. Cunningham) 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

West v. Cunningham, 159 S.E. 748, 43 Ga. App. 581, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, an assignment of error on a refusal to grant a nonsuit will not be considered where the case proceeds to verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and thereafter the defendant makes a motion for a new trial in which he alleges that the verdict was unauthorized by the evidence.

2. The evidence for the plaintiff, while somewhat indefinite as to some of the items sued for, authorized the verdict, and the grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining' of the admission of certain alleged immaterial and prejudicial evidence, show no reversible error. The ease was fairly tried. There is no exception to the charge of tlie court. The jury evidently believed the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and the finding of the jury has been approved by the trial judge. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, 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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, an assignment of error on a refusal to grant a nonsuit will not be considered where the case proceeds to verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and thereafter the defendant makes a motion for a new trial in which he alleges that the verdict was unauthorized by the evidence.

2. The evidence for the plaintiff, while somewhat indefinite as to some of the items sued for, authorized the verdict, and the grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining' of the admission of certain alleged immaterial and prejudicial evidence, show no reversible error. The ease was fairly tried. There is no exception to the charge of tlie court. The jury evidently believed the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and the finding of the jury has been approved by the trial judge. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E. 748, 43 Ga. App. 581, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-cunningham-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack