Hammond v. Scoggins
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.
Jenkins, J.
The assignments of error as to excerpts from the charge of the court are without substantial merit. The evidence authorized the verdict; and the newly discovered evidence, being merely cumulative and tending only to show admissions made in a casual conversation, will not require a new trial, especially where the statements thus proposed to be proved are directly denied by the counter-affidavit of the other party to the 'conversation, and where the integrity of the affiant is assailed. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Civil Code (1910), §§ 6085, 6086; Erskine v. Duffy, 76 Ga. 602 (5); Grubb v. Kalb, 37 Ga. 459 ; Atlanta Consolidated St. Ry. Co. v. McIntire, 103 Ga. 568 (2) ( 29 S. E. 766 ); Holliday v. Athens, 10 Ga. App. 709 (7) ( 74 S. E. 67 ); Knight v. Northey, 21 Ga. App. 46 (5) ( 93 S. E. 535 ).
Judgment affirmed.
Wade, C. J., and Luhe, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.