neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
published
0.2 score
Cited for
No citing cases on record.
Hill
v.
Duke
v.
Duke
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Feb 26, 1913.
Published opinion
J. A. B. Mahaffey, Cobb & Erwin, and John J. Striclclmd, for plaintiff in error., H. E. Dem, J. S. Ayers, and Thomas J. Shackelford, contra.
Atkinson.
Published
Atkinson, J.
1. The charge was substantially correct, and adjusted to the evidence. In-so far as proper, the requests to charge were covered by the general charge.
2. The evidence authorized the verdict) and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.