Case ID: ga_158/html/0480-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam. Russell, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mitchell v. Callenback.
   Pee Curiam.

Upon consideration of all the questions raised by the assignments of error in the motion for new trial, the court is of the opinion that the portions of the charge excepted to are not erroneous for any reason assigned. The verdict in the case is supported by the evidence, and the judge did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except

Russell, C. J.,

dissenting. In my opinion a verdict in favor of the plain-

tiff in error was demanded, even despite errors in the charge of the court which were adverse to him, and for these reasons a new trial should have been granted.

No. 4022.

June 16, 1924.

Equitable petition. Before .Judge J. B. Jones. Babun superior court. August 38, 1933.

T. L. Bynum, for plaintiff. J. T. Davis, for defendant.