Holliday v. Guill
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, Chief Justice.
We shall deal first with the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.
The controlling issue upon the trial was the question of title to the ¿5-acre tract to which the plaintiff, Mrs. Guill, and the defendant, Mrs. Holliday, asserted opposing claims. There were two defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Holliday, but their answer alleged title only in Mrs. Holliday. It is contended by the defendants that the verdict for the plaintiff was contrary to the evidence and withofit evidence to support it, and that a new trial should have been granted lor this reason. No question as to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Robertson v. AbernathySupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Wallace v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- Veal v. VealSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- First National Bank v. HarmonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
3Cited by3 opinions
- York v. JamesWyoming Supreme Court · 1946
- Watkins v. Hartwell RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 2004
- Nissim Hadjes, Inc. v. CostanzoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967