Stedham v. Kinney

• Decision Date: 10 June 1930
• Docket Number: 20445.
• Citation: 153 S.E. 610,41 Ga.App. 543
• Parties: STEDHAM v. KINNEY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

153 S.E. 610

41 Ga.App. 543

STEDHAM v. KINNEY.

No. 20445.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

June 10, 1930

Syllabus by the Court.

The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied.

Verdict supported by any evidence and approved by trial judge cannot be set aside because of conflicting evidence or insufficiency of evidence.

"A verdict supported by any evidence and approved by the trial judge cannot be set aside by this court because of conflicting evidence or alleged insufficiency of evidence."

Error from Superior Court, Carroll County; C. E. Roop, Judge.

Action by U.S. Kinney against W. L. Stedham. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Smith & Millican, of Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.

Boykin & Boykin, of Carrollton, for defendant in error.

LUKE, J.

U.S. Kinney sued W. L. Stedham for $3,902, alleged to be due plaintiff for services rendered in mixing and selling guano for the defendant during the years 1925 and 1926. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff owed him various amounts, the aggregate of which exceeded the sum sued for. The case was referred to an auditor, who found in favor of Kinney in the sum of $2,455.05. The judge of the superior court sustained Stedham's exceptions to the auditor's report, and ordered a jury trial of the case. The jury rendered a verdict for Kinney in the sum of $835.05 principal, and $162.01 interest. The only exception is to the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial, based solely upon the usual general grounds.

The evidence is voluminous and conflicting, but the defendant in error sustained his case by his oral testimony. In these circumstances this court is bound by the verdict of the jury. See Patton v. State, 117 Ga. 234, 43 S.E. 533; White v. State, 25 Ga.App. 554, 103 S.E. 803; Collins v. Broom, 21 Ga.App. 420, 94 S.E. 645. Therefore the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

BROYLES, C.J., and BLOODWORTH, J., concur.