Case ID: ga-app_34/html/0137-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodwortii, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

16374.
    Dimond v. Shackelford.
   Bloodwortii, J.

1. The court did not err in any of the rulings relating to the pleadings, of which error is alleged in the exceptions pendente lite.

Decided June 9, 1925.

Rehearing denied July 14, 1925.

Attachment; from city court of Baiubridge—Judge Spooner. March 2, 1925.

W. I. & P. Z. Geer, for plaintiff in error.

J. Q. Hale, contra.

2. None of fclie special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows any reason why. the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.

3'. A verdict for the full amount sued for was properly directed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.