Case ID: ga_142/html/0245-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fish, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Saul & Company et al. v. Schlomerg et al.
    
    August 18, 1914.
    Complaint. Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior court. May 17, 1913.
    
      Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & Heyman, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      O. J. Coogler and Joseph W. & John D. Humphries, contra.
   Fish, C. J.

1. The evidence authorized thé jury to find that a partnership existed.

2. In the brief of counsel for plaintiffs in error it is stated that, while they do not abandon-any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial, all of the alleged errors revolve about the question whether or not the evidence construed most favorably for the plaintiffs made a case of partnership. Having held that it did, none of the other grounds of the motion is such as to require a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.