Crowley v. McCracken
J. G. & M. L. Crowley v. McCracken
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hill, C, J.
1. A defendant can not complain because a verdict rendered against Mm was too small, under the evidence, and should have been for a larger amount. Jones & Phillips, Inc. v. Patrick, ante, 67; Pullman Co. v. Schaffner, 126 Ga. 609 ( 55 S. E. 933 ) ; Central Ry. Co. v. Trammell, 114 Ga. 315 ( 40 S. E. 259 ) ; Strickland v. Hutchinson, 123 Ga. 399 ( 51 S. E. 348 ); Roberts v. Rigden, 81 Ga. 440 ( 7 S. E. 742 ).
2. No specific error of law is complained of, and the verdict is supported by the evidence. The judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages on the amount of the judgment recovered in the court below, for delay on account of suing out and prosecuting the writ of error.
Judgment affirmed, with damages.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.