Wilson v. Patterson

93 S.E. 225, 20 Ga. App. 615, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 998
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 25, 1917
Docket8633, 8634
StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E. 225 (Wilson v. Patterson) 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
Wilson v. Patterson, 93 S.E. 225, 20 Ga. App. 615, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 998 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

George, J.

1. In a case in which the verdict was not demanded by the law and the evidence, the Court of Appeals will not disturb the first grant of a new trial, though based upon a single ground complaining of failure of the court to give in charge to the jury a particular principle of law; and will not determine whether the trial court was right in granting the motion on the special ground. Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368 (64 S. E. 262), and cit.; Civil Code (1910), §§ 6204, 6088.

2. The main bill of exceptions assigns error upon the first grant of a new trial, based upon a single special ground of the motion for a new trial, and the cross-bill of exceptions assigns error upon the overruling of the remaining grounds of the motion. The judgment on both bills of exceptions is Affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. Action for damages; from Fulton superior court—Judge Bell. September 30, 1916. Robert 0. & Philip H. Alston, for Wilson. Guy Parker, Madison Richardson, Bryan & Middlebrooks, contra.

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

Related

Cox v. Grady
64 S.E. 262 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 S.E. 225, 20 Ga. App. 615, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-patterson-gactapp-1917.