Wiley v. Dodson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wiley v. Dodson

114 S.E. 62, 29 Ga. App. 161, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 129

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 5, 1922

Docket13558

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 S.E. 62 (Wiley v. Dodson) 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

Wiley v. Dodson, 114 S.E. 62, 29 Ga. App. 161, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworti-i, J.

This case was tried by one of the judges of the municipal court of Atlanta, and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff. A petition for certiorari was sanctioned and the writ was issued, but upon a hearing of the case the certiorari was overruled. It is not claimed that any error was committed during the progress of the trial.’ There is some evidence to support the verdict. This case is controlled by the ruling in the case of Hixon v. Callaway, 5 Ga. App. 416 (2) (63 S. E. 518), where it was held that “this court will not disturb the finding of the trial court, acting without the intervention of a jury, on a question of fact, where there is some evidence to support the finding.” See High Co. v. Adams Express Co., 5 Ga. App. 863 (63 S. E. 1125); Anderson v. Anderson, 27 Ga. App. 515 (6) (108 S. E. 907).

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

Bloodworti-i, J.

This case was tried by one of the judges of the municipal court of Atlanta, and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff. A petition for certiorari was sanctioned and the writ was issued, but upon a hearing of the case the certiorari was overruled. It is not claimed that any error was committed during the progress of the trial.’ There is some evidence to support the verdict. This case is controlled by the ruling in the case of Hixon v. Callaway, 5 Ga. App. 416 (2) (63 S. E. 518), where it was held that “this court will not disturb the finding of the trial court, acting without the intervention of a jury, on a question of fact, where there is some evidence to support the finding.” See High Co. v. Adams Express Co., 5 Ga. App. 863 (63 S. E. 1125); Anderson v. Anderson, 27 Ga. App. 515 (6) (108 S. E. 907).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 62, 29 Ga. App. 161, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiley-v-dodson-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack