J.R. Watkins Co. v. Mims
Decision Date | 02 March 1926 |
Docket Number | 17000. |
Citation | 132 S.E. 241,35 Ga.App. 170 |
Parties | J. R. WATKINS CO. v. MIMS. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
"Rulings upon the sufficiency of the pleadings are not proper subject-matter for a motion for a new trial." Coulson v. State, 13 Ga.App. 148 (2), 150, 78 S.E 1108, 1110, and citations; Tompkins v. American Land Co., 139 Ga. 377 (2), 77 S.E. 623, and citations. Under the foregoing ruling there is no merit in special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial.
The second special ground of the motion alleges that the court "erred in admitting the following material evidence, to wit: The certificate of discharge in bankruptcy to C. S Lee." This ground is imperfect because it does not set forth the discharge in form or substance, so that this court may determine from the assignment itself what were the contents of the evidence objected to. McCollum v Thomason, 32 Ga.App. 163 (8), 122 S.E. 800.
Franklin v. State, 28 Ga.App. 460, 461 (1b), 112 S.E. 170; Wellborn v. State, 32 Ga.App. 55 (2), 122 S.E. 648; American Machinery Co. v. Arbuthnot, 33 Ga.App. 575 (3), 127 S.E. 416. Under the ruling in the foregoing cases, grounds 3 and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial cannot be considered. Reference to other portions of the record would have to be made to ascertain the relevancy of much of the evidence referred to in this ground. Who is the "Mr. Preston" and the "Mr. York" referred to therein, and what, if any, is the connection of each with the case, and what is the written contract referred to therein, and what "exclusive territory" was promised to plaintiff?
The Court of Appeals has no authority to settle disputed questions of fact. The jury on conflicting evidence settled the issue in favor of the defendant, their finding was approved by the judge who heard the case, and the judgment is affirmed.
Error from City Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trammell v. Shirley, (No. 19042.)
...148 (2), 78 S. E. 1108, and citations; Tompkins v. American Land Co., 139 Ga. 377 (2), 77 S. E. 623, and citations; Wat-kins v. Mims, 35 Ga. App. 170, 171, 132 S. E. 241. "A judgment upon the demurrer cannot be considered upon a motion for a new trial." Polhill v. State, 25 Ga. App, 383, 10......
-
Trammell v. Shirley
... ... American Land Co., 139 ... Ga. 377 (2), 77 S.E. 623, and citations; Watkins v ... Mims, 35 Ga.App. 170, 171, 132 S.E. 241 ... "A ... judgment upon the ... ...
-
City Of La Grange v. Pound
...S. E. 176; Jasper County v. Butts County, 147 Ga. 673, 95 S. E. 254; Sheppard v. State, 28 Ga. App. 735, 113 S. E. 54; Watkins Co. v. Mims, 35 Ga. App. 170, 132 S. E. 241; Dixon v. State, 28 Ga. App. 756, 113 S. E. 24; Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co., 146 Ga. 157 (4), 91 S. E. 32; Harper v.......
-
Livingston v. State
...is not complete within itself, therefore, and will not considered. Cathey v. State, 28 Ga.App. 666 (4), 112 S.E. 915; Watkins Co. v. Mims, 35 Ga.App. 170 (3), 32 S.E. 241. 4. A trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, may permit the State, after it has rested its case, to reopen its ......