Jambs v. Boyett
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, P. J.
1. This was a suit on account for'fertilizer furnished to a person other than the defendant, and the jury found for the defendant. The controlling issue -in the case was whether there was an original undertaking between the plaintiff and the defendant, or whether the fertilizer was sold by the plaintiff to the third person named on an oral promise by the defendant that he would become surety for that person in the transaction; and there was evidence which authorized the jury to find that it was a case of suretyship only.
2. The grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not being specifically argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, are deemed abandoned. The general statement in the brief that “plaintiff in error insists most strongly on each and all of the amended grounds of motion for new trial and does not abandon any of them, but says that the court erred as set forth in each of the amended grounds,” is not sufficient to change the rule. Youmans v. Moore, 11 Ga. App. 66 ( 74 S. E. 710 ); Muse v. Hall, 18 Ga. App. 651 (3) ( 90 S. E. 222 ).
Judgment affirmed.
Jenhins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 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.