Case ID: ga_97/html/0403-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Simmons, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Morris & Company v. Reed Brothers & Company.
    January 20, 1896.
    Complaint on account. Before Judge Yan Epps. City court of Atlanta. March, term, 1895.
    
      May son & Hill, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      King & Andersooi, contra.
   Simmons, C. J.

1. The verdict being the necessary result of the evidence, and the evidence being sufficient, and upon the controlling questions in the case not conflicting, it is not cause for a new trial that the verdict was directed by the trial judge.

2. An examination of the record discloses that no error of material consequence, if any at all, was committed, and no sufficient reason for reversing the judgment below has been shown.

Judgment affirmed.