Case ID: ga_137/html/0822-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Murray et al. v. McGuire, and vice versa.
    
    March 14, 1912.
    Probate of will. Before Judge Conyers. Glynn superior court. July 15, 1911.
    
      F. II. Harris and D. W. Xrauss, for Murray et al.
    
      Gourtland Symmes and Joseph W. Bennet, contra.
   Per Curiam.

1. Under the facts of this case, the court did not err in granting a second new trial

Beck and Hiel, JJ. We dissent from the ruling made in the first headnote. Gregory v. Granite R. Co., 132 Ga. 587 (4), (64 S. E. 686); Dethrage v. Rome, 125 Ga. 802 (54 S. E. 654); Veal v. Robinson, 76 Ga. 838. See also: Cleveland v. Central R. Co., 73 Ga. 793; Cook v. W. & A. R. Co., 72 Ga. 48; Central R. Co. v. Opie, 58 Ga. 346; Turner v. Rome St. R. Co., 81 Ga. 336 (6 S. E. 690); Veal v. Veal, 45 Ga. 511, 512; Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Randolph, 136 Ga. 505, 507 (71 S. E. 887).

2. Upon considering the assignments of error in the cross-bill of exceptions, the court is of the opinion that none of them show error requiring the grant of a new trial. .

•Judgment affirmed on both bills of exceptions.

All the Justices concur, except Beck and Rill, JJ., dissenting.