Doyal Development Co., Inc. v. Blair, 51343
| Decision Date | 16 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 51343,No. 1,51343,1 |
| Citation | 224 S.E.2d 55,137 Ga.App. 434 |
| Parties | DOYAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. E.T. BLAIR |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Civil Court of Fulton County; Kermit C. Bradford, Judge.
Rolader, Barham, Davis, Graham & McEvoy, D.W. Rolader, Atlanta, for appellant.
McHaney & Lynn, Robert L. McHaney, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
We have reviewed the record and the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the trial judge, and conclude that those findings and conclusions are amply supported by the evidence and are adequate to dispose of the issues raised below. This court will not disturb findings and conclusions that are not "clearly erroneous." CPA § 52(a) (Code Ann. § 81A-152(a)). See cases cited in Doyal Development Co. v. Blair, 133 Ga.App. 613(2), 211 S.E.2d 642, reversed on other grounds in Doyal Development Co. v. Blair, 234 Ga. 261, 215 S.E.2d 471, vacated in Doyal Development Co. v. Blair, 135 Ga.App. 337, 217 S.E.2d 501.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thomas Milling Co., Inc.
... ... and Reinsurance Act of 1968 (Title XI of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Public Law 90-448, 90th Congress, August 1, 1968, 82 Stat ... ...
-
Associated Distributors, Inc. v. McBee
...for the defendant. See Brook Forest Enterprises, Inc. v. Paulding County, 231 Ga. 695(1), 203 S.E.2d 860; Doyal Development Co., Inc. v. Blair, 137 Ga.App. 434, 224 S.E.2d 55; Kingston Development Co., Inc. v. Kenerly, 132 Ga.App. 346, 208 S.E.2d 118, Judgment affirmed. BELL, C.J., and STOL......
-
Johnson v. Scott, 53553
...clearly erroneous (American Appraisal Co. v. Whitley Construction Co., 126 Ga.App. 398, 399, 190 S.E.2d 838; Doyal Development Co. v. Blair, 137 Ga.App. 434, 224 S.E.2d 55), and the judgment will not be disturbed where the record does not show error. Where, as here, there is no transcript o......
-
Casey v. Carrollton Ford Co.
...not "clearly erroneous" and is supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, no reason for reversal is found. Doyal Development Co. v. Blair, 137 Ga.App. 434, 224 S.E.2d 55; Yalanzon v. Sharon Const. Co., 141 Ga.App. 294(2), 233 S.E.2d 3. For the foregoing reasons it was not error for t......