History
  • No items yet
midpage
Smith v. Turnipseed
44 Ga. App. 220
Ga. Ct. App.
1931
Check Treatment
Bell, J.

1. It is never reversible .error to refuse to direct a verdict, Bennett v. Patten, 148 Ga. 66 (3 b) (95 S. E. 690).

2. “An exception that the verdict is contrary to a specified part of the charge of the court raises no question that is not covered by the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.” Luke v. Ashburn Bank, 40 Ga. App. 802 (4) (151 S. E. 562).

3. There was a conflict in the evidence, and a different verdict would have been authorized; but the jury being the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, the fact that they may have found against the plaintiff as to one issue did not require their rejection of his evidence in toto, or vitiate the verdict found in his favor as to other matters. Hill-Atkinson Co. v. Hasty, 17 Ga. App. 569 (7) (87 S. E. 839).

4. “A verdict will not be set aside as unsupported by the evidence when the amount of it is within the range covered by the testimony, though it may not correspond with the contentions of either party.” Hawley Furnace Co. v. Van Winkle Gin &c. Works, 4 Ga. App. 85 (2) (60 S. E. 1008).

5. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial was free from error. The superior court properly overruled the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. Turnipseed
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Oct 17, 1931
Citation: 44 Ga. App. 220
Docket Number: 21273
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.