History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hicks v. Brown Estate
38 Ga. App. 659
Ga. Ct. App.
1928
Check Treatment
Luke, J.

1. There being evidence to support the verdict rendered, this court can not say that the trial judge erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. There being no assignment in the final bill of exceptions either upon- the exceptions pendente lite or upon the rulings excepted to therein, no question is presented for decision under the exceptions pendente lite. Ga. L. 1921, p. 232 (Michie’s Code (1926), § 6139 (1)); Alexander v. Chipstead, 152 Ga. 851 (111 S. E. 552); House v. American Discount Co., 31 Ga. App. 396 (120 S. E. 701); Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 34 Ga. App. 555 (130 S. E. 378); Carter v. Vanlandingham, 37 Ga. App. 642 (141 S. E. 429).

3. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no reversible error. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Hicks v. Brown Estate
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Oct 2, 1928
Citation: 38 Ga. App. 659
Docket Number: 19052
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.