Roddenberry Hardware Co. v. Merritt
Roddenberry Hardware Company v. Merritt
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.
Broyles, J.
1. The first, second, and third grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, failing to set out literally or in substance the particular evidence, the admission of which is assigned as error, present no question for decision. Shaw v. Jones, 133 Ga. 446 (9), 450 ( 66 S. E. 240 ); Davis v. Gaskins, 137 Ga. 450 (2), 451 ( 73 S. E. 579 ).
2. The fourth ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial can not be considered, as the contract (the admission of a carbon copy of which is assigned as error) is not set forth, either literally or in substance, in that ground. Stewart v. Randall, 138 Ga. 796 (5), 797 ( 76 S. E. 352 ).
3. The refusal of a trial judge to direct a verdict is never reversible error;- and, accordingly, there is no merit in the fifth ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.
4. However, upon the general grounds it appears that the judgment must be reversed, because nowhere in the record is there any evidence to -support the amount of the verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff'.
Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 19 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.