Westbrook v. Chandler

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Westbrook v. Chandler

167 S.E. 322, 46 Ga. App. 288, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 126

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 23, 1932

Docket22394

StatusPublished

This text of 167 S.E. 322 (Westbrook v. Chandler) 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

Westbrook v. Chandler, 167 S.E. 322, 46 Ga. App. 288, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 126 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooper, J.

W. S. Chandler foreclosed in a justice’s court a laborer’s lien against S. W. Westbrook. Westbrook appealed- to the superior court, where the jury returned a verdict against him for $65. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and on this ruling he assigned error. The evidence shows that Chandler did the work for Westbrook, and was not paid for it. The testimony of the parties, as to the contract for the labor in question, was in conflict; and the jury showed by their verdict that they accepted the testimony of Chandler, as they had the right to do. The evidence amply authorized the verdict in favor of Chandler. No error of law is shown, and the motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds only, was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. E. II. George, for plaintiii in error. E. W. Roberts, contra.

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

Hooper, J.

W. S. Chandler foreclosed in a justice’s court a laborer’s lien against S. W. Westbrook. Westbrook appealed- to the superior court, where the jury returned a verdict against him for $65. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and on this ruling he assigned error. The evidence shows that Chandler did the work for Westbrook, and was not paid for it. The testimony of the parties, as to the contract for the labor in question, was in conflict; and the jury showed by their verdict that they accepted the testimony of Chandler, as they had the right to do. The evidence amply authorized the verdict in favor of Chandler. No error of law is shown, and the motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds only, was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. E. II. George, for plaintiii in error. E. W. Roberts, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 322, 46 Ga. App. 288, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westbrook-v-chandler-gactapp-1932.