Williams v. Wolfe Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Williams v. Wolfe Bros.

131 S.E. 920, 34 Ga. App. 767, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 4

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1926

Docket16892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 S.E. 920 (Williams v. Wolfe Bros.) 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

Williams v. Wolfe Bros., 131 S.E. 920, 34 Ga. App. 767, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 4 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial contains a special ground as follows: “Movant would show that at the conclusion of the evidence in said case the attorney for the defendant moved the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, and the attorney for the plaintiff moved the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff; whereupon the court asked if both sides were willing for him to do so, that he would take the papers in said case and such of the evidence as was contained in the interrogatories and consider them and direct a verdict one way or the other. Counsel for both sides agreed, and the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount sued for.'” The effect of the foregoing agreement was to allow the judge to pass upon the facts of the case without the intervention of .a jury. The judge, upon a consideration of the conflicting evidence, directed verdict for the plaintiff. There is some evidence to support the finding, and the verdict will not be disturbed by this court. See Coalson Co. v. Burney, 29 Ga. App. 137 (113 S. E. 825); Wiley v. Dodson, 29 Ga. App. 161 (114 S. E. 62), and cases cited in the opinion in each of these cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs, Broyles, C. J., disqualified.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial contains a special ground as follows: “Movant would show that at the conclusion of the evidence in said case the attorney for the defendant moved the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, and the attorney for the plaintiff moved the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff; whereupon the court asked if both sides were willing for him to do so, that he would take the papers in said case and such of the evidence as was contained in the interrogatories and consider them and direct a verdict one way or the other. Counsel for both sides agreed, and the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount sued for.'” The effect of the foregoing agreement was to allow the judge to pass upon the facts of the case without the intervention of .a jury. The judge, upon a consideration of the conflicting evidence, directed verdict for the plaintiff. There is some evidence to support the finding, and the verdict will not be disturbed by this court. See Coalson Co. v. Burney, 29 Ga. App. 137 (113 S. E. 825); Wiley v. Dodson, 29 Ga. App. 161 (114 S. E. 62), and cases cited in the opinion in each of these cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs, Broyles, C. J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 920, 34 Ga. App. 767, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-wolfe-bros-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack