Case ID: ga_97/html/0328-01.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

Seymour v. Daniel, ordinary, for use, etc.
    July 29, 1895.
    By two Justices.
    ■ Action on bond. Before Judge Reese. Madison superior court. September term, 1894.
    
      David W. Meadow, for plaintiff, in error.
    
      Jolm J. Strickland, contra.
   Simmons, C. J.

Most of the numerous grounds of the motion for a new trial fail entirely to plainly and distinctly set forth the errors complained of, but on the contrary, are too vague, con- . fused, indefinite and unintelligible for consideration by this, court; in none of the grounds does it appear that any error requiring a new trial was committed; the evidence was sufficient to warrant the verdict, and it having been approved by the trial judge, this court will not set it aside.

Judgment affirmed.