Case ID: ga-app_24/html/0536-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

10809.
    Gardner v. Commercial City Bank.
    Decided December 9, 1919.
    Complaint; from city court of Amerieus—Judge Harper. June 8, 1919.
    
      Shipp & Sheppard, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Wallis & Fort, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

The motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds; there was an acute conflict in the evidence as to whether the defendant executed the note sued upon, but the finding of the jury that she did was authorized, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Dulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.