Case ID: ga_82/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bleckley, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith vs. Lee & Company.
    The plaintiffs having recovered apparently less, instead of more, than the evidence warranted, there was no canse for granting a new trial at the instance of the other party.
    March 22, 1889.
    Evidence.’ Verdict. New trial. Before Judge Atkinson. Coffee superior court. May term, 1888.
    Report unnecessary.
    Roberts & Smith by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff in error.
    E. P. Padgett, by brief, contra.
    
   Bleckley, Chief Justice.

Lee & Co. recovered against Smith a verdict for $191. We have read all the evidence, and our conclusion is that the recovery, if not precisely correct, was rather less than it should have been. • The court committed no error in refusing to grant a new trial. There is no legal principle involved in the case, and a more extended discussion would be useless.

Judgment affirmed. •