58 Ga. App. 676 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1938
Broyles, C. J.
1. Special grounds 2, 3, and 4 of the motion for new trial are not complete and understandable within themselves, and therefore can not be considered by this court.
2. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and this court, ground 5 of the motion for new trial, complaining of the exclusion of certain documentary evidence, can not be considered, since the evidence is not set forth in the ground or attached thereto as an exhibit.
3. Upon the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff, the court, on motion, directed a verdict for the defendants. The evidence for the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for recovery, and the court should have granted a nonsuit instead of directing the verdict. “There is a substantial difference, materially affecting the rights of a plaintiff,
Judgment affirmed, imth direction.