White Provision Co. v. Hardman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White Provision Co. v. Hardman

111 S.E. 67, 28 Ga. App. 299, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 463

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1922

Docket12855

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 67 (White Provision Co. v. Hardman) 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

White Provision Co. v. Hardman, 111 S.E. 67, 28 Ga. App. 299, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The White Provision Company obtained judgment against C. W. Christian, and W. L. Hardman was served with a summons of garnishment. Hardman answered that he was in no way indebted to the defendant in fi. fa. and had in his hands nothing belonging to him. This answer was traversed. Hpon the trial of the issues raised by the traverse and on conflicting evidence the jury returned a verdict in favor of the garnishee and against the traverse. The motion for a new trial contained the general grounds only; there was some evidence to support the finding of the jury, and their verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of. this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. See Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), 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

Bloodworth, J.

The White Provision Company obtained judgment against C. W. Christian, and W. L. Hardman was served with a summons of garnishment. Hardman answered that he was in no way indebted to the defendant in fi. fa. and had in his hands nothing belonging to him. This answer was traversed. Hpon the trial of the issues raised by the traverse and on conflicting evidence the jury returned a verdict in favor of the garnishee and against the traverse. The motion for a new trial contained the general grounds only; there was some evidence to support the finding of the jury, and their verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of. this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. See Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 67, 28 Ga. App. 299, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-provision-co-v-hardman-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack