Woodruff v. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention
159 S.E. 855, 173 Ga. 102, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 272
Opinion
Under tlie evidence in this case the verdict for the defendant was the only one that could legally have been rendered; and therefore the court did not err in directing it. The amendment to the motion for new trial is only an elaboration of the general grounds, and does not show error. Civil Code (1910), § 5926.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Woodruff v. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention, 159 S.E. 855, 173 Ga. 102, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 272 (Ga. 1931).
159 S.E. 855 (Woodruff v. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sells v. Sells
58 S.E.2d 186 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
City of Abbeville v. Jay
55 S.E.2d 129 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Gay v. Jenkins County
191 S.E. 389 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)