Case ID: ga-app_30/html/0004-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

13941.
    Cartersville Grocery Co. v. Elk Manufacturing & Commission Co.
    Decided March 6, 1923.
    Rehearing denied April 11, 1923.
    Attachment; from city court of Cartersville — Judge Townsend. July 22, 1922.
    
      Willingham, Wright & Covington, J. B. Whiialcer, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Neel & Neel, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

When the entire charge is considered in the light of all the facts of the case, there is nothing in any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial, based upon alleged errors in the charge of the court, or in the refusal to charge, that requires the grant of a new trial; for no reason assigned in the other grounds of the motion is a new trial demanded, and,,as there is evidence to support the finding of the jury, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Luke, J., dissents.