Daniel v. Mitchell

After verdict in favor of the plaintiffs qn the first trial of this case, the court granted a new trial, and the judge expressed the view that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that a verdict for the defendant was demanded. This judgment was affirmed on the ground that the evidence did not demand a verdict for the plaintiffs. Daniel v. Mitchell, 176 Ga. 353 (168 S. E. 12). On the second trial, after introduction of evidence (the plaintiffs having introduced the entire brief of the evidence introduced at the former trial), counsel for the plaintiffs stated that, in view…