Case ID: ga-app_21/html/0284-01.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

8404.
    Bank of Omega v. Youmans.
    Decided November 14, 1917.
    Complaint; from city court of Tifton — Judge Eve. December 30, 1916.
    
      B. D. Smith, for plaintiff in error. Fulwood & FLargrett, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

1. The petition sets out a cause of action, and the court properly overruled the demurrer.

2. Even if, under the facts of this case, counsel for the defendant in the court below should have been allowed to open and conclude the argument, yet, as the defendant introduced no evidence, and the evidence for the plaintiff demanded a verdict in his favor, the error was harmlss. “While the opening and conclusion of the argument ’is generally a valuable right, its refusal can not in any event be reversible error where the evidence demanded the verdict.” Madison Supply & Hardware Co. v. Richardson, 8 Ga. App. 344 (5) (69 S. E. 45); Moore v. Brown, 81 Ga. 10 (3a) (6 S. E. 833). See also Gibson v. Wilson, 130 Ga. 243, 244 (3) (60 S. E. 565).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.